Cited by 1,276Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The Table 2 Fallacy: Presenting and Interpreting Confounder and Modifier Coefficients

Open access
Westreich, D., Greenland, S.·2013·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

It is common to present multiple adjusted effect estimates from a single model in a single table. For example, a table might show odds ratios for one or more exposures and also for several confounders from a single logistic regression. This can lead to mistaken interpretations of these estimates. We use causal diagrams to display the sources of the problems. Presentation of exposure and confounder effect estimates from a single model may lead to several interpretative difficulties, inviting confusion of direct-effect estimates with total-effect estimates for covariates in the model. These effect estimates may also be confounded even though the effect estimate for the main exposure is not confounded. Interpretation of these effect estimates is further complicated by heterogeneity (variation, modification) of the exposure effect measure across covariate levels. We offer suggestions to limit potential misunderstandings when multiple effect estimates are presented, including precise distinction between total and direct effect measures from a single model, and use of multiple models tailored to yield total-effect estimates for covariates.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kws412

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008;183-209.
  2. Pearl J. Causality. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
  3. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Westreich, D., & Greenland, S.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Westreich, D.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2013-01-30
Volume
177
Issue
4
Pages
292-298
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2138008655
Cited by
1,276
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 177 · 2025: 213 · 2024: 212 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 192 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4
FWCI
10.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AI064518)
  • Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI064518)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R00HD063961)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
causal graphs, confounding, odds ratio, logistic regression
MeSH terms
HIV Seropositivity, Humans, Mathematical Computing, North Carolina, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Smoking, Statistics as Topic, Violence, Work, HIV Infections, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Epidemiologic Studies, Risk Assessment, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review