Clinical trials: How to assess confounding and why so

Current Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 129-133

  Cleophas, Ton J ^a,b   Zwinderman, Aeilko H ^a  

^a European College of Pharmaceutical Medicine   (France)

^b ALBERT SCHWEITZER HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Confounders; Propensity scores; Regression analysis; Subclassification

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; CIGARETTE SMOKING; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; HUMAN; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MORTALITY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 34249328524     PISSN: 15748847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/157488407780598162     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF. Statistics applied to clinical trials. Springer, New York 2006; 141-50.
2. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 1968; 24: 295-313.
3. Rosenbaum P, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55
4. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity score. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 757-763.
5. SPSS Statistical Software. http:/www.spss.com
6. Cleophas TJ, Hadj-Chaib A, Zwinderman AH. Cardiovascular trials: odds ratios, why to assess them, and how to do so. Am J Ther 2007; 11: in press.
7. Cleophas TJ, Tuinenburg E, Van der Meulen J, Kauw FH. Wine drinking and other dietary characteristics in males under 60 before and after acute myocardial infarction. Angiology 1996; 47: 789-96.
8. Soledad Cepeda M, Boston R, Fairer JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity scores when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 280-7.
9. Wickramaratne PJ, Holford TR. Confounding in epidemiological studies: the adequacy of the control groups as a measure of confounding. Biometrics 1987; 43: 751-65.
10. Huppler Hullsiek K, Louis TA. Propensity scores modeling strategies for the causal analysis of observational data. Biostat 2002; 3: 179-93.
11. Begg CB. Commentary: ruminations on the intent to treat. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 241-3.
12. Beal SL, Sheiner LB. A note on the use of Laplace's approximations for non-linear mixed-effects models. Biometrika 1996; 83: 447-52.
13. SAS. http:www.prw.le.ac.uk/epidemiol/personal/ajs22/meta/macros. sas
14. Boeckman AJ, Sheiner LB, Beal SL. 1984 NONMEM user guide: part V. NONMEM Project Group, University of California, San Francisco.
15. Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF. Statistics applied to clinical trials. Springer, New York 2006, 329-36.