Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies
Open Access
- 5 May 2007
- journal article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in European Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 22 (7), 413-415
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9126-1
Abstract
We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline to assess the proportion of observational intervention studies appreciating confounding bias in peer-reviewed medical literature from 1985 through 2005. This study shows only 9% of all papers on observational intervention studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals mention any of the terms (confounding, adjustment, or bias) indicating appreciation of confounding.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Benefits of influenza vaccine in US elderly--appreciating issues of confounding bias and precision.International Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeuticsPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2006
- Evaluating non-randomised intervention studiesHealth Technology Assessment, 2003
- Data dredging, bias, or confoundingBMJ, 2002
- Confounding by indication in non-experimental evaluation of vaccine effectiveness: the example of prevention of influenza complicationsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2002
- Epidemiology—is it time to call it a day?International Journal of Epidemiology, 2001
- Assessment and Control for Confounding by Indication in Observational StudiesJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1999
- Confounding and indication for treatment in evaluation of drug treatment for hypertensionBMJ, 1997