A new criterion for confounder selection? Neither a confounder nor science

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 984-986

  Shahar, Eyal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRITERION VARIABLE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

ALGORITHMS; BIOMETRY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS;

EID: 84885022177     PISSN: 13561294     EISSN: 13652753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12010     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Shahar, E., &, Shahar, D. J., (2012) Causal diagrams and three pairs of biases. In Epidemiology-Current Perspectives on Research and Practice (ed., N. Lunet,), pp. 31-62. Rijeka: InTech. Available at: http://www.intechopen.com/ books/epidemiology-current-perspectives-on-research-and-practice (last accessed 11 July 2012).
2. VanderWeele, T. J., &, Shpitser, I., (2011) A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics, 67 (4), 1406-1413.
3. Popper, K. R., (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
4. Miller, D., (1994) Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
5. Shahar, E., (2012) A method to detect an unknown confounder: something from nothing? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18 (3), 702-703.
6. Hubbard, R., &, Bayarri, M. J., (2003) Confusion over measures of evidence (p's) versus errors (α's) in classical statistical testing. The American Statistician, 57, 171-178.
7. Shahar, E., &, Shahar, D. J., (2011) Marginal structural models: much ado about (almost) nothing. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. Epub 24 August 2011.