Confounding of incidence density ratio in case-control studies

Epidemiology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 624-625

  Greenland, Sander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; GENDER; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INCIDENCE DENSITY RATIO; LETTER; LOW RISK POPULATION; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION EXPOSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 84879869661     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182953c23     Document Type: Letter

References (9)

1. Karp I. Irrelevance of noncollapsibility in casecontrol studies. Epidemiology. 2013;24: 173-174.
2. Greenland S, Thomas DC. On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;116: 547-553.
3. R othman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2008.
4. Greenland S. Absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the rate ratio or rate difference. Epidemiology. 1996;7: 498-501.
5. Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci. 1999;14: 29-46.
6. Greenland S, Pearl J. Adjustments and their consequences-collapsibility analysis using graphical models. Int Stat Rev. 2011;79: 401-426.
7. Vaupel JW, Yashin AI. Heterogeneity's ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. Am Stat. 1985;39: 176-185.
8. Hernán MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology. 2010;21: 13-15.
9. 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.