In the previous article on confounding in this series,1 we presented the traditional explanation of a confounder. Over the past few decades, it has become clear that this definition has many limitations. For example, confounding can be induced by a network of variables rather than just a single variable, and adjusting for potential confounders can paradoxically increase confounding.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Attia JR, Jones MP, Hure A. Deconfounding confounding part I: traditional explanations. Med J Aust 2017; 206: 244-245. <MJA full text>
- 2. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2016.
- 3. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008; 183-209.
- 4. Pearl J. Causality, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
- 5. Shrier I, Platt RW. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 70.
- 6. Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 488-495.
- 7. Textor J, Hardt J, Knüppel S. DAGitty: a graphical tool for analyzing causal diagrams. Epidemiology 2011; 22: 745.
- 8. Greenland S, Pearce N. Statistical foundations for model-based adjustments. Annu Rev Public Health 2015; 36: 89-108.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.