Rejoinder: A formal causal interpretation of the case‐crossover design

We thank the discussants for their insightful commentary and questions. In our rejoinder, we extend our analysis to additional settings, control strategies, and sources of bias relevant to how case‐crossover is often used in practice, as suggested by multiple discussants. In particular, we consider: control exposures that follow occurrence of events, settings with shared exposure trajectories (which are common in case‐crossover studies of effects of air pollution), bias due to non‐transient treatment effects, removing bias due to time trends in treatment using control subjects, and extending our results to the continuous time setting. We also take the opportunity to clarify an easily misinterpreted comment we made about collapsibility, which we thank Andersen and Martinussen for highlighting. Throughout, in the spirit of the discussants. contributions, we iterate between general bias formulas and simulations and numerical studies from illustrative simplified scenarios to build insight.