title: Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: 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
authors.forename: Rolf H H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Groenwold
authors.forename: Arno W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Hoes
authors.forename: Eelko
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Hak
mesh_terms: 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