Skip Navigation



American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published online on July 5, 2007
American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwm174
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplemental Material
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
166/6/659    most recent
kwm174v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fewell, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Sterne, J. A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fewell, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Sterne, J. A. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology © The Author 2007. Published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Fewell et al. Respond to "Fuel for Debate"

Zoe Fewell, George Davey Smith and Jonathan A. C. Sterne

From the Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Correspondence to Prof. Jonathan A. C. Sterne, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, United Kingdom (e-mail: Jonathan.Sterne@bristol.ac.uk).

Received for publication December 13, 2006. Accepted for publication May 3, 2007.

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

In our paper (1), we considered the extent and patterns of bias in estimates of exposure-outcome associations that can result from residual or unmeasured confounding, when there is no true association between the exposure and the outcome. We conducted simulations with two or four confounders. When the confounders are uncorrelated, bias in the exposure effect estimate increases as the amount of residual and unmeasured confounding increases. However, patterns are more complex for correlated confounders: It is possible for the bias to increase when confounder measurement error decreases or when additional confounders are controlled for.

In his commentary, Dr. James Marshall (2) correctly identifies some limitations of our . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?