The DOI matches its Crossref record.
RE:“;THE IMPACT OF CONFOUNDER SELECTION CRITERIA ON EFFECT ESTIMATION”
Abstract
Much controversy exists regarding proper methods for the selection of variables in confounder control. Many authors condemn any use of significance testing, some encourage such testing, and other propose a mixed approach. This paper presents the results of a Monte Carlo simulation of several confounder selection criteria, including change-in-estimate and collapsibility test criteria. The methods are compared with respect to their impact on inferences regarding the study factor's effect, as measured by test size and power, bias, mean-squared error, and confidence interval coverage rates. In situations in which the best decision (of whether or not to adjust) is not always obvious, the change-in-estimate criterion tends to be superior, though significance testing methods can perform acceptably if their significance levels are set much higher than conventional levels (to values of 0.20 or more).
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression
Bursac, Z., Gauss, C. H., Williams, D. K., & Hosmer, D. W. (2008) · Source Code for Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 · Cited by 4,035
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Simulation Study of Confounder-Selection Strategies
Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116813 · Cited by 2,491
Self-citationModeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis
Greenland, S. (1989) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.79.3.340 · Cited by 2,208
Self-citationTransitional Care of Older Adults Hospitalized with Heart Failure: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Naylor, M. D., Brooten, D. A., Campbell, R. L., Maislin, G., McCauley, K. M., & Schwartz, J. S. (2004) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52202.x · Cited by 1,365
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenland, S., & Mickey, R. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-11
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1066-1066
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W1926244529
- Cited by
- 2,108
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: RE:“;THE IMPACT OF CONFOUNDER SELECTION CRITERIA ON EFFECT ESTIMATION”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115409
- The paper
- Greenland, S., & Mickey, R. M. (1989). RE:“;THE IMPACT OF CONFOUNDER SELECTION CRITERIA ON EFFECT ESTIMATION”. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115409
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
