Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies.
We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline to assess the proportion of observational intervention studies appreciating confounding bias in peer-reviewed medical literature from 1985 through 2005. This study shows only 9% of all papers on observational intervention studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals mention any of the terms (confounding, adjustment, or bias) indicating appreciation of confounding.
Groenwold
Rolf H H
RH
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Universiteitsweg 100, STR 6.118, 3584 GC, Utrecht, The Netherlands. r.h.h.groenwold@umcutrecht.nl
Hoes
Arno W
AW
Hak
Eelko
E
D015982:Bias; D015706:Bibliometrics; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D006801:Humans; D016239:MEDLINE / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019370:Observation; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016896:Treatment Outcome