Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Apr;97(4):394-399. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13295. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Confounding is an important source of bias, but it is often misunderstood. We consider how confounding occurs and how to address confounding using examples. Study results are confounded when the effect of the exposure on the outcome, mixes with the effects of other risk and protective factors for the outcome. This problem arises when these factors are present to different degrees among the exposed and unexposed study participants, but not all differences between the groups result in confounding. Thinking about an ideal study where all of the population of interest is exposed in one universe and is unexposed in a parallel universe helps to distinguish confounders from other differences. In an actual study, an observed unexposed population is chosen to stand in for the unobserved parallel universe. Differences between this substitute population and the parallel universe result in confounding. Confounding by identified factors can be addressed analytically and through study design, but only randomization has the potential to address confounding by unmeasured factors. Nevertheless, a given randomized study may still be confounded. Confounded study results can lead to incorrect conclusions about the effect of the exposure of interest on the outcome.
混杂是偏倚的一个重要来源,但它经常被误解。我们考虑混杂是如何发生的,以及如何通过例子来解决混杂。当暴露对结果的影响与其他结果的风险和保护因素的影响混合在一起时,研究结果就会受到混杂的影响。当这些因素在暴露和未暴露的研究参与者中存在不同程度的差异,但并非所有组间差异都导致混杂时,就会出现这个问题。思考一个理想的研究,其中所有感兴趣的人群都在一个宇宙中暴露,在一个平行的宇宙中未暴露,可以帮助区分混杂因素和其他差异。在实际研究中,选择观察到的未暴露人群来代表未观察到的平行宇宙。这个替代人群与平行宇宙之间的差异会导致混杂。已识别因素引起的混杂可以通过分析和研究设计来解决,但只有随机化才有解决未测量因素引起的混杂的潜力。然而,给定的随机研究仍可能存在混杂。混杂的研究结果可能导致对感兴趣的暴露对结果的影响的不正确结论。