解释观察性研究中的混淆

Bikaramjit S. Mann, Evan Wood
{"title":"解释观察性研究中的混淆","authors":"Bikaramjit S. Mann, Evan Wood","doi":"10.2174/1874297101205010018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practical and ethical constraints mean that many clinical and/or epidemiological questions cannot be answered through the implementation of a randomized controlled trial. Under these circumstances, observational studies are often required to assess relationships between certain exposures and disease outcomes. Unfortunately, observational studies are notoriously vulnerable to the effect of different types of \"confounding,\" a concept that is often a source of confusion among trainees, clinicians and users of health information. This article discusses the concept of confounding by way of examples and offers a simple guide for assessing the impact of is effects for learners of evidence-based medicine.","PeriodicalId":87834,"journal":{"name":"The open epidemiology journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"18-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confounding in Observational Studies Explained\",\"authors\":\"Bikaramjit S. Mann, Evan Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874297101205010018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Practical and ethical constraints mean that many clinical and/or epidemiological questions cannot be answered through the implementation of a randomized controlled trial. Under these circumstances, observational studies are often required to assess relationships between certain exposures and disease outcomes. Unfortunately, observational studies are notoriously vulnerable to the effect of different types of \\\"confounding,\\\" a concept that is often a source of confusion among trainees, clinicians and users of health information. This article discusses the concept of confounding by way of examples and offers a simple guide for assessing the impact of is effects for learners of evidence-based medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The open epidemiology journal\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"18-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The open epidemiology journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874297101205010018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open epidemiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874297101205010018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

实践和伦理限制意味着许多临床和/或流行病学问题无法通过实施随机对照试验来回答。在这种情况下,通常需要观察性研究来评估某些暴露与疾病结果之间的关系。不幸的是,观察性研究极易受到不同类型“混淆”的影响,这一概念往往是学员、临床医生和卫生信息使用者混淆的根源。本文通过实例讨论了混淆的概念,并为循证医学学习者提供了评估其影响的简单指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confounding in Observational Studies Explained
Practical and ethical constraints mean that many clinical and/or epidemiological questions cannot be answered through the implementation of a randomized controlled trial. Under these circumstances, observational studies are often required to assess relationships between certain exposures and disease outcomes. Unfortunately, observational studies are notoriously vulnerable to the effect of different types of "confounding," a concept that is often a source of confusion among trainees, clinicians and users of health information. This article discusses the concept of confounding by way of examples and offers a simple guide for assessing the impact of is effects for learners of evidence-based medicine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信