METHODOLOGY FOR THE ENDOCRINOLOGIST: Basic aspects of confounding adjustment

in European Journal of Endocrinology

Correspondence should be addressed to R H H Groenwold; Email: R.H.H.Groenwold@lumc.nl
Restricted access

The results of observational studies of causal effects are potentially biased due to confounding. Various methods have been proposed to control for confounding in observational studies. Eight basic aspects of confounding adjustment are described, with a focus on correction for confounding through covariate adjustment using regression analysis. These aspects should be considered when planning an observational study of causal effects or when assessing the validity of the results of such a study.

 

     European Society of Endocrinology

Sept 2018 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 276 276 276
Full Text Views 53 53 53
PDF Downloads 32 32 32
  • 1

    KlungelOHMartensEPPsatyBMGrobbeeDESullivanSDStrickerBHLeufkensHGde BoerA. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004 57 12231231. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.011)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    GroenwoldRHVan DeursenAMHoesAWHakE. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology 2008 18 746751. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.05.007)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    HernanMARobinsJM. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC2020.

  • 4

    VanderWeeleTJ. Principles of confounder selection. European Journal of Epidemiology 2019 34 211219. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00494-6)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    PearlJ. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011 174 12231227; discussion 1228. (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr352)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    ShrierIPlattRW. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008 8 70. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-70)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    HsiehFYBlochDALarsenMD. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine 1998 17 16231634. (https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980730)17:14<1623::aid-sim871>3.0.co;2-s)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    WitteJDidelezV. Covariate selection strategies for causal inference: classification and comparison. Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift 2019 61 12701289. (https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700294)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    GroenwoldRHSterneJALawlorDAMoonsKGHoesAWTillingK. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of multiple unmeasured confounders. Annals of Epidemiology 2016 26 605611. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.07.009)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    FergusonKDMcCannMKatikireddiSVThomsonHGreenMJSmithDJLewseyJD. Evidence synthesis for constructing directed acyclic graphs (ESC-DAGs): a novel and systematic method for building directed acyclic graphs. International Journal of Epidemiology 2019 dyz220 In press. (https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz220)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    WestreichDGreenlandS. The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. American Journal of Epidemiology 2013 177 292298. (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws412)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    GroenwoldRHKlungelOHAltmanDGvan der GraafYHoesAWMoonsKG & PROTECT WP2 (Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium Work Programme 2 [Framework for pharmacoepidemiology studies]). Adjustment for continuous confounders: an example of how to prevent residual confounding. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2013 185 401406. (https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.120592)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    SauerbreiWPerperoglouASchmidMAbrahamowiczMBecherHBinderHDunklerDHarrellFEJrRoystonPHeinzeG. State-of-the-art in selection of variables and functional forms in multivariable analysis – outstanding issues. arXiv Preprint 2019. (available at: arXiv:1907.00786)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    HemkensLGEwaldHNaudetFLadanieAShawJGSajeevGIoannidisJPA. Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018 93 94102. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.013)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    PouwelsKBWidyakusumaNNGroenwoldRHHakE. Quality of reporting of confounding remained suboptimal after the STROBE guideline. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016 69 217224. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.009)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    VanderWeeleTJDingP. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine 2017 167 268274. (https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation