Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies

Rolf H. H. Groenwold*, Arno W. Hoes, Eelko Hak

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

    18 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline to assess the proportion of observational intervention studies appreciating confounding bias in peer-reviewed medical literature from 1985 through 2005. This study shows only 9% of all papers on observational intervention studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals mention any of the terms (confounding, adjustment, or bias) indicating appreciation of confounding.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)413-415
    Number of pages3
    JournalEuropean Journal of Epidemiology
    Volume22
    Issue number7
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jul-2007

    Keywords

    • bias
    • confounding factors
    • epidemiology
    • methodology
    • VACCINE
    • BIAS

    Cite this