American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 121, No. 1: 152-158
Copyright © 1985 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
research-article |
CONDITIONS FOR CONFOUNDING OF THE RISK RATIO AND OF THE ODDS RATIO1
There are disagreements in the literature about the criteria to be used to ascertain whether or not a measure of association is confounded. The authors postulate the general principle that a crude unconfounded measure of association is structured as a weighted average of the stratum-specific values of the measure. They examine the relationships between stratum-specific measures of association, crude overall measures, and weighted averages of stratum-specific measures, and indicate how these relationships may be used to define criteria for the assessment of confounding in cohort studies in which the exposure, disease, and stratification variables are classified dichotomously. The criteria presented differ for the risk ratio and for the disease-odds ratio. In other words, one can reach different conclusions about the confounding effect of a given extraneous variable, depending on which measure of association is chosen. This view differs from that of Miettinen and Cook (Confounding: essence and detection. Am J Epidemiol 1981;1 14:593–603) who postulated one set of criteria for the assessment of confounding, which was applicable to both measures of association. These different approaches may lead to different conclusions about the presence or absence of confounding.
epidemiologic methods; statistics
1From the Department of Epidemiology and Health, McGill University, 3775 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B4. (Reprint requests to Dr. Jean-François Boivin.)
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Rosato, F. Seccareccia, P. D'Errigo, D. Fusco, A. Maraschini, G. Badoni, and C. A. Perucci Thirty-day mortality after AMI: effect modification by gender in outcome studies Eur J Public Health, November 27, 2009; (2009) ckp194v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Ritz and D. Spiegelman Equivalence of conditional and marginal regression models for clustered and longitudinal data Statistical Methods in Medical Research, August 1, 2004; 13(4): 309 - 323. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R McNamee Confounding and confounders Occup. Environ. Med., March 1, 2003; 60(3): 227 - 234. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Hanley, A. Negassa, M. D. deB. Edwardes, and J. E. Forrester Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data Using Generalized Estimating Equations: An Orientation Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2003; 157(4): 364 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Wacholder, N. Rothman, and N. Caporaso RESPONSE: Re: Population Stratification in Epidemiologic Studies of Common Genetic Variants and Cancer: Quantification of Bias J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 157 - 158. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Prentice Design issues in cohort studies Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 1995; 4(4): 273 - 292. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Wacholder Design issues in case-control studies Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 1995; 4(4): 293 - 309. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|