PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7304589

Confounding: essence and detection.

O S Miettinen·E F Cook
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Confounding is examined from first principles. In follow-up studies a confounder is a predictor of diagnosing the illness--by being either a risk indicator or a determinant of diagnostic errors; in addition, it shows different distributions between the exposed and nonexposed series. In case-referent studies confounding can arise in two ways. A priori confounders are correlates of exposure in the joint source population of cases and reference subjects; also, they are determinants of diagnosing the illness or have different selection implications between cases and referents. In addition, factors bearing on the accuracy of exposure information are confounders if distributed differently between cases and referents. Criteria based singularly on relationships in the data can be misleading. Similarly, a change in the estimate and even a change in the parameter as a result of control is not a criterion rooted in first principles of confounding and can lead to a false conclusion.

Explore related subjects

BiometryCoronary DiseaseEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleRandom AllocationSmokingTolbutamideJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

O S Miettinen, E F Cook. 1981. Confounding: essence and detection.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113225

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1996

[Conservative experimental groups in clinical comparative trials. Tables providing the minimum number of patients].

To calculate the minimum size of sample required for clinical trials it is first necessary to decide the expected difference between the groups, and then the acceptable risk of wrongly declaring a significant result (alpha) or wrongly declaring a non-significant result (beta). Once these three parameters are set, simple tables can show the necessary sample sizes. Such tables are presented for classical comparative studies, survival studies, and group sequential plans. Sequential plans often entail large savings in sample size compared with fixed group plans.

Biometry↗
PubMed1996

Characterisation of the possible effect on birthweight following frequent prenatal ultrasound examinations.

The objective of this study was to evaluate and characterise by study of newborn biometry a possible effect on birthweight which we observed previously in a randomised controlled trial of multiple prenatal ultrasound examinations. A total of 2743 women with single pregnancies had been allocated at random to either a protocol of ultrasound imaging and continuous wave Doppler studies at 18, 24, 28, 34 and 38 weeks gestation (intensive group), or to a protocol of a single imaging examination at 18 weeks and further imaging scans only as clinically indicated (regular group). When compared with those in the regular group, and adjusted for other confounding variables, normally formed babies of term gestational age in the intensive group tended to be shorter when measured at birth (P = 0.123) and on day 2-3 of age (P = 0.068). There were statistically insignificant reductions in the circumferences of the chest, abdomen and mid-arm; and in the skinfold thicknesses of the triceps, parascapular and subscapular regions. Principal component analysis showed a trend for a reduction for the skeletal component (P = 0.085) but not for the soft tissue component (P = 0.332). Comparison of the neonatal biometry in the two groups is not conclusive, but the differential effects on the various growth parameters suggest that if multiple scans do indeed restrict fetal growth, the mechanism is more likely to be an effect on bone growth rather than a reduction in nutrient supply from the placenta.

Biometry↗