Sonis J
Department of Family Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Fam Med. 1998 Sep;30(8):584-8.
Confounding is one of the most common and important biases in primary care research. This article explains the genesis and effects of two common misconceptions of confounding: 1) Confounding can be assessed with a statistical test. 2) All covariates should be included in a multivariate model to control confounding. Assessment of confounding by testing the statistical significance of baseline differences or the significance of a potential confounding factor in a multivariate model can produce underestimates or overestimates of the true association between an exposure and an outcome. Inclusion of all covariates in a multivariate model may lead to controlling for variables that are not, in fact, confounders. This may produce underestimates or overestimates of the effect in question, as well as artificially widened confidence intervals. Both of these misconceptions can lead to profound misinterpretation of research results. To prevent problems resulting from these misunderstandings, researchers should consider drawing causal models prior to conducting the research and use the change-in-estimate criterion, rather than a statistical test, to detect confounding.
混杂是初级保健研究中最常见且重要的偏倚之一。本文解释了关于混杂的两种常见误解的成因及影响:1)混杂可以通过统计检验进行评估。2)所有协变量都应纳入多变量模型以控制混杂。通过检验基线差异的统计学显著性或多变量模型中潜在混杂因素的显著性来评估混杂,可能会低估或高估暴露与结局之间的真实关联。将所有协变量纳入多变量模型可能会导致对实际上并非混杂因素的变量进行控制。这可能会低估或高估所研究的效应,以及人为地扩大置信区间。这两种误解都可能导致对研究结果的深刻误读。为防止因这些误解而产生问题,研究人员应在开展研究之前考虑绘制因果模型,并使用估计值变化标准而非统计检验来检测混杂。