观察性干预研究出版物中的混杂因素。
Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies.
作者信息
Groenwold Rolf H H, Hoes Arno W, Hak Eelko
机构信息
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Universiteitsweg 100, STR 6.118, 3584 GC, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
出版信息
Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(7):413-5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9126-1. Epub 2007 May 5.
We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline to assess the proportion of observational intervention studies appreciating confounding bias in peer-reviewed medical literature from 1985 through 2005. This study shows only 9% of all papers on observational intervention studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals mention any of the terms (confounding, adjustment, or bias) indicating appreciation of confounding.
我们在Medline中进行了系统的文献检索，以评估1985年至2005年间同行评审医学文献中认识到混杂偏倚的观察性干预研究的比例。这项研究表明，在同行评审医学期刊上发表的所有关于观察性干预研究的论文中，只有9%提到了任何表明认识到混杂的术语（混杂、调整或偏倚）。
Zotero 插件