Controlling for Continuous Confounders in Epidemiologic Research
Abstract
Multiple regression models are commonly used to control for confounding in epidemiologic research. Parametric regression models, such as multiple logistic regression, are powerful tools to control for multiple covariates provided that the covariate-risk associations are correctly specified. Residual confounding may result, however, from inappropriate specification of the confounder-risk association. In this paper, we illustrate the order of magnitude of residual confounding that may occur with traditional approaches to control for continuous confounders in multiple logistic regression, such as inclusion of a single linear term or categorization of the confounder, under a variety of assumptions on the confounder-risk association. We show that inclusion of the confounder as a single linear term often provides satisfactory control for confounding even in situations in which the model assumptions are clearly violated. In contrast, categorization of the confounder may often lead to serious residual confounding if the number of categories is small. Alternative strategies to control for confounding, such as polynomial regression or linear spline regression, are a useful supplement to the more traditional approaches.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Error in measurement of potential confounders can increase the risk of residual confounding.
“Error in measurement of potential confounders can increase the risk of residual confounding [ 62 , 63 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [63]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 15 · Cited by 151
- Authors
- Brenner, H., & Blettner, M.
- Affiliations
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- German Cancer Research Center (DE)
- ORCID
- Brenner, Hermann
- Venue
- Epidemiology
- Published
- 1997-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429
- ISSN
- 1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088554939
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Keywords
- residual confounding, multivariate logistic regression, polynomial regression, model misspecification, confounding adjustment
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Humans, Regression Analysis, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Risk Assessment
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