↓ Skip to main content

The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, November 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 155)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
42 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
509 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, November 2005
DOI 10.1186/1742-7622-2-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Höfler

Abstract

Bradford Hill's considerations published in 1965 had an enormous influence on attempts to separate causal from non-causal explanations of observed associations. These considerations were often applied as a checklist of criteria, although they were by no means intended to be used in this way by Hill himself. Hill, however, avoided defining explicitly what he meant by "causal effect". This paper provides a fresh point of view on Hill's considerations from the perspective of counterfactual causality. I argue that counterfactual arguments strongly contribute to the question of when to apply the Hill considerations. Some of the considerations, however, involve many counterfactuals in a broader causal system, and their heuristic value decreases as the complexity of a system increases; the danger of misapplying them can be high. The impacts of these insights for study design and data analysis are discussed. The key analysis tool to assess the applicability of Hill's considerations is multiple bias modelling (Bayesian methods and Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis); these methods should be used much more frequently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 509 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 1%
Canada 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 479 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 105 21%
Researcher 71 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 13%
Student > Bachelor 43 8%
Professor 31 6%
Other 127 25%
Unknown 66 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 211 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 7%
Social Sciences 26 5%
Psychology 22 4%
Other 81 16%
Unknown 85 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 368. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2024.
All research outputs
#84,866
of 25,261,240 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#3
of 155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80
of 72,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,261,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 72,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.