Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding
- 28 April 2005
- Vol. 330 (7498) , 1021-1023
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1021
Abstract
Introduction The previous articles in this series1 2 argued that cohort studies are exposed to selection bias and confounding, and that critical appraisal requires a careful assessment of the study design and the identification of potential confounders. This article describes two analytical strategies—regression and stratification—that can be used to assess and reduce confounding. Some cohort studies match individual participants in the intervention and comparison groups on the basis of confounders, but because matching may be viewed as a special case of stratification we have not discussed it specifically and details are available elsewhere.3 4 Neither of these techniques can eliminate bias related to unmeasured or unknown confounders. Furthermore, both have their own assumptions, advantages, and limitations.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confoundingBMJ, 2005
- Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and designBMJ, 2005
- Association Between SSRI Use and Hip Fractures and the Effect of Residual Confounding Bias in Claims Database StudiesJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2004
- Central Nervous System Active Medications and Risk for Fractures in Older WomenArchives of internal medicine (1960), 2003
- Short and long term mortality associated with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections: registry based study.2003
- MATCHING AND EFFICIENCY IN COHORT STUDIESAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1990