We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Commonalities in the classical, collapsibility and counterfactual concepts of confounding.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004 April
OBJECTIVES: Three definitions of confounding are available in the epidemiologic literature, namely, the classical, collapsibility, and counterfactual. The classical and collapsibility definitions are intuitively appealing but, especially in the case of the latter, there are shortcomings. The more recent counterfactual definition overcomes these limitations but at the cost of increased abstraction. One of the aims of this article is to demonstrate that under certain conditions the three definitions of confounding have key features in common.
CONCLUSIONS: The counterfactual definition of confounding addresses the inherent shortcomings of the classical and collapsibility definitions, and forms the basis of innovative methods of data analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The counterfactual definition of confounding addresses the inherent shortcomings of the classical and collapsibility definitions, and forms the basis of innovative methods of data analysis.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app