Readers should systematically assess methods used to identify, measure and analyze confounding in observational cohort studies
- 31 August 2007
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 60 (8) , 766.e1-766.e11
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.008
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Excess Dosing of Antiplatelet and Antithrombin Agents in the Treatment of Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary SyndromesJAMA, 2005
- Observational Studies of Drugs and MortalityNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Temporal Trends in Early Clinical Manifestations of Perinatal HIV Infection in a Population-Based CohortJAMA, 2005
- Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confoundingBMJ, 2005
- 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
- A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeuticsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practiceBMJ, 2004
- When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?The Lancet, 2004
- Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients Treated for Human Immunodeficiency Virus InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003