The potential for Simpson's paradox in drug utilization studies

Annals of Epidemiology

Volumn 7, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 517-521

  Neutel, C Ineke ^a,b  

^a HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^b AL4103B1   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biostatistics; Cohort Study; Confounding; Naproxen

Indexed keywords

NAPROXEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOSTATISTICS; COHORT ANALYSIS; DRUG UTILIZATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AGENTS, NON-STEROIDAL; CANADA; COHORT STUDIES; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DRUG UTILIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NAPROXEN; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX DISTRIBUTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0030722734     PISSN: 10472797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1047-2797(97)00084-7     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Simpson EH. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. J R Stat Soc. 1951;2:238-241.
2. Hand DJ. Psychiatric examples of Simpson's paradox. Br J Psychiatr. 1979;135:90-96.
3. Julious SA, Mullee MA. Confounding and Simpson's paradox. BMJ. 1994;309:1480-1481.
4. Hintzman DL. On variability, Simpson's paradox, and the relation between recognition and recall: reply to Tulving and Flexer. Psychol Rev. 1993;100:143-148.
5. Last JM, ed. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
6. Malcolm E, Downey W, Strand L, McNutt M, West R. Saskatchewan Health's linkable data bases and pharmacoepidemiology. Post Marketing Surveillance. 1993;6:175-264.
7. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS Procedures: Reference. Version 6. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1990.