The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effectiveness of Adjustment by Subclassification in Removing Bias in Observational Studies
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“If a continuous confounder is grouped, residual confounding may occur, whereby some of the variable's confounding effect remains unadjusted for (see Box 5 ) [ 62 , 89 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [89]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
“If a continuous confounder is grouped, residual confounding may occur, whereby some of the variable’s confounding effect remains unadjusted for (see Box 5) [62,89].”
SOME PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x · Cited by 6,238
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Metadata
- Authors
- Cochran, W. G.
- Corresponding author
- Cochran, W. G.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1968-06
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 295
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4297791620
- Cited by
- 961
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 58
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biometrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- subclassification, bias mitigation, observational studies, confounding, stratified analysis
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Biometry, Humans, Male, Methods, Middle Aged, Mortality, Smoking
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
