History of the modern epidemiological concept of confounding

26Citations
Citations of this article
116Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The epidemiological concept of confounding has had a convoluted history. It was first expressed as an issue of group non-comparability, later as an uncontrolled fallacy, then as a controllable fallacy named confounding, and, more recently, as an issue of group noncomparability in the distribution of potential outcome types. This latest development synthesised the apparent disconnect between phases of the history of confounding. Group non-comparability is the essence of confounding, and the statistical fallacy its consequence. This essay discusses how confounding was perceived in the 18th and 19th centuries, reviews how the concept evolved across the 20th century and finally describes the modern definition of confounding.

References Powered by Scopus

Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease

13779Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies

5531Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A structural approach to selection bias

2035Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour

711Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Control of confounding and reporting of results in causal inference studies

539Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

On the definition of a confounder

186Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morabia, A. (2011). History of the modern epidemiological concept of confounding. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(4), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.112565

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 55

61%

Researcher 19

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 13

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 44

69%

Psychology 8

13%

Nursing and Health Professions 6

9%

Environmental Science 6

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 3

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free