Generalizability methods are increasingly used to make inferences about the effect of interventions in target populations using a study sample. Most existing methods to generalize effects from sample to population rely on the assumption that subgroup-specific effects generalize directly. However, researchers may be concerned that in fact subgroup-specific effects differ between sample and population. In this brief report, we explore the generalizability of subgroup effects. First, we derive the bias in the sample average treatment effect estimator as an estimate of the population average treatment effect when subgroup effects in the sample do not directly generalize. Next, we present a Monte Carlo simulation to explore bias due to unmeasured heterogeneity of subgroup effects across sample and population. Finally, we examine the potential for bias in an illustrative data example. Understanding the generalizability of subgroup effects may lead to increased use of these methods for making externally valid inferences of treatment effects using a study sample.

Policymakers use results from randomized controlled trials to inform decisions about whether to implement treatments in target populations. Various methods - including inverse probability weighting, outcome modeling, and Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation - that use baseline data available in both the trial and target population have been proposed to generalize the trial treatment effect estimate to the target population. Often the target population is significantly larger than the trial sample, which can cause estimation challenges. We conduct simulations to compare the performance of these methods in this setting. We vary the size of the target population, the proportion of the target population selected into the trial, and the complexity of the true selection and outcome models. All methods performed poorly when the trial size was only 2% of the target population size or the target population included only 1,000 units. When the target population or the proportion of units selected into the trial was larger, some methods, such as outcome modeling using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, performed well. We caution against generalizing using these existing approaches when the target population is much larger than the trial sample and advocate future research strives to improve methods for generalizing to large target populations.

We estimated the degree to which language used in the high-profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations; examined disconnects between language and recommendations; identified the most common linking phrases; and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched for and screened 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, 3 reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as none (no causal implication) in 13.8%, weak in 34.2%, moderate in 33.2%, and strong in 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was "associate" (45.7%). Reviewers' ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous; over half of reviewers rated "association" as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding "causal" words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.