Absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the rate ratio or rate difference

Epidemiology

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 498-501

  Greenland, Sander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

collapsibility; confounding; odds ratio; relative risk

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0029826910     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199609000-00008     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Yanagawa T. Designing case-control studies. Environ Health Perspect 1979; 32:143-156.
2. Miettinen OS, Cook EF. Confounding: essence and detection. Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:593-603.
3. Boivin JF, Wacholder S. Conditions for confounding of the risk ratio and of the odds ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:152-158.
4. Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.
5. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol 1986;15:413-419.
6. Robins JM, Morgenstern H. The foundations of confounding in epidemiology. Comput Math Applic 1987;14:869-916.
7. Wickramaratne PJ, Holford T. Confounding in epidemiologic studies: the adequacy of the control group as a measure of confounding. Biometrics 1987;43:751-765.
8. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:761-768.
9. Checkoway H, Pearce N, Crawford-Brown DJ. Research Methods in Occupational Epidemiology. New York: Oxford, 1989.
10. Hauck WW, Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Anderson S. A consequence of omitted covariates when estimating odds ratios. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44: 77-81.
11. Becher H. The concept of residual confounding in regression models and some applications. Stat Med 1992;11:1747-1758.
12. Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical Models in Epidemiology. New York: Oxford, 1993.
13. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat 1978;6:34-58.
14. Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of Survival Data. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1984.
15. Greenland S, Neutra RR. An analysis of detection bias and proposed corrections in the study of estrogens and endometrial cancer. J Chron Dis 1981;34:433-438.
16. Weinberg CR. Toward a clearer definition of confounding. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:1-8.
17. Gail MH. Adjusting for covariates that have the same distribution in exposed and unexposed cohorts. In: Moolgavkar SH, Prentice RL, eds. Modern Statistical Methods in Chronic Disease Epidemiology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.
18. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD, Hauck WW. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. Int Stat Rev 1991;59:25-35.
19. Vaupel JW, Yashin AI. Heterogeneity's ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. Am Stat 1985;39:176-185.
20. Riggs JE. Age-specific mortality rate comparisons: is there a fallacy? J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1463-1464.
21. Whittemore AS. Collapsing multidimensional contingency tables. J R Stat Soc B 1978;40:328-340.
22. Cox DR, Isham V. Point Processes. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1980.