Literature DB >> 2081259

Indirect assessment of confounding: graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates.

W D Flanders1, M J Khoury.   

Abstract

Confounding is recognized as a mixing of effects that can lead to spurious conclusions about the association between disease and a putative risk factor. Confounding occurs if an extraneous factor causes disease and is associated with the exposure of interest. Since information on potential confounders may be missing, the investigator may assess confounding indirectly by specifying values for three types of parameters: the prevalence of the covariate in the population, the association between exposure and the covariate, and the effect of the covariate on disease. Qualitative and quantitative arguments suggest that adjustment for a potential confounder may have small effects on the risk ratio, even if the confounder is a strong risk factor. In this report we illustrate graphically the effect that adjustment for a confounder will have on the risk ratio and derive limits for the magnitude of that effect. Our approach allows the investigator to calculate limits for the maximum effect of covariate adjustment, even if only one or two of the relevant parameters can be specified.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2081259     DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199005000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  31 in total

1.  Genetic self knowledge and the future of epidemiologic confounding.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Tyler Vander Weele
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Effect of different approaches to treatment of smoking as a potential confounder in a case-control study on occupational exposures.

Authors:  L Richiardi; F Forastiere; P Boffetta; L Simonato; F Merletti
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 3.  Bias in occupational epidemiology studies.

Authors:  Neil Pearce; Harvey Checkoway; David Kriebel
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 4.  Methodology, design, and analytic techniques to address measurement of comorbid disease.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Vincent Mor; Darryl Wieland; Luigi Ferrucci; William Satariano; Rebecca A Silliman
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.053

5.  Propensity score-based sensitivity analysis method for uncontrolled confounding.

Authors:  Lingling Li; Changyu Shen; Ann C Wu; Xiaochun Li
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  On the role of marginal confounder prevalence - implications for the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm.

Authors:  Tibor Schuster; Menglan Pang; Robert W Platt
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 2.890

7.  Correlates of long sleep duration.

Authors:  Sanjay R Patel; Atul Malhotra; Daniel J Gottlieb; David P White; Frank B Hu
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.849

8.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Methadone Versus Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Dependence and Risk of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

Authors:  Lara S Lemon; Steve N Caritis; Raman Venkataramanan; Robert W Platt; Lisa M Bodnar
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  EVALUATING COSTS WITH UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING: A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE TREATMENT EFFECT.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Handorf; Justin E Bekelman; Daniel F Heitjan; Nandita Mitra
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.083

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.