Causal inference improves understanding of causation in pharmacovigilance, highlighting biases in disproportionality analysis.
Using DAGs to map and mitigate biases requires caution and does not allow to obtain definitive answers to causal questions. Still, it results in more reliable and knowledge-based safety signals, reducing and mapping the gap between what we find (association) and what we look for (causation). Additional research should further tailor DAGs to pharmacovigilance challenges, map the generative mechanisms of pharmacovigilance data, and better integrate disproportionality analysis results into evidence-synthesis workflows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fusaroli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: