Cited by 260Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Risk Factors, Confounding, and the Illusion of Statistical Control

Christenfeld, Nicholas J. S., Sloan, Richard P., Carroll, Douglas, Greenland, Sander·2004·Psychosomatic Medicine

Abstract

When experimental designs are premature, impractical, or impossible, researchers must rely on statistical methods to adjust for potentially confounding effects. Such procedures, however, are quite fallible. We examine several errors that often follow the use of statistical adjustment. The first is inferring a factor is causal because it predicts an outcome even after "statistical control" for other factors. This inference is fallacious when (as usual) such control involves removing the linear contribution of imperfectly measured variables, or when some confounders remain unmeasured. The converse fallacy is inferring a factor is not causally important because its association with the outcome is attenuated or eliminated by the inclusion of covariates in the adjustment process. This attenuation may only reflect that the covariates treated as confounders are actually mediators (intermediates) and critical to the causal chain from the study factor to the study outcome. Other problems arise due to mismeasurement of the study factor or outcome, or because these study variables are only proxies for underlying constructs. Statistical adjustment serves a useful function, but it cannot transform observational studies into natural experiments, and involves far more subjective judgment than many users realize.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.psy.0000140008.70959.41

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The validity of results often depends crucially on complete knowledge of important confounders, their precise measurement, and appropriate specification in the statistical model.

    “Thus, great care should be exercised when interpreting adjusted results, as the validity of results often depends crucially on complete knowledge of important confounders, their precise measurement, and appropriate specification in the statistical model (see also item 20) [ 157 , 158 ].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christenfeld, N. J. S., Sloan, R. P., Carroll, D., & Greenland, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Christenfeld, Nicholas J. S.
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
2004-11
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
868-875
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065056866
Cited by
260
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 28
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
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
confounding, statistical adjustment, causal inference, risk factors, measurement error, mediators, covariate adjustment, observational studies, natural experiment
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Research Design, Risk Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Health Behavior, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Observation

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