Skip to main content

Confounding

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 6108 Accesses

Abstract

When published, a randomized parallel-group drug trial essentially includes a table listing all of the factors, otherwise called baseline characteristics, known possibly to influence outcome. E.g., in case of heart disease these will probably include apart from age and gender, the prevalence in each group of diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol levels, smoking history, other cardiovascular comorbidities, and concomitant medications. If the prevalence of such factors is similar in the two groups, then we can attribute any difference in outcome to the effect of test-treatment over reference-treatment. However, if this is not the case, we have a problem which can be illustrated by an example. Figure 28.1 shows the results of a study where the treatment effects are better in the males than they are in the females. This difference in efficacy does not influence the overall assessment as long as the numbers of males and females in the treatment comparison are equally distributed. If, however, many females received the new treatment, and many males received the control treatment, a peculiar effect on the overall data analysis is observed: the overall regression line is close to horizontal, giving rise to the erroneous conclusion that no difference in efficacy exists between treatment and control. This phenomenon is called confounding, and may have a profound effect on the outcome of a trial. In randomized controlled trials confounding is, traditionally, considered to play a minor role in the data. The randomization ensures that no covariate of the efficacy variable is associated with the randomized treatment (Cleophas et al. 2006a). However, the randomization may fail for one or more variables, making such variables confounders. Then, adjustment of the efficacy estimate should be attempted. Methods include subclassification (Cochran 1968), regression modeling (Cleophas et al. 2006a), and propensity scores (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983; Rubin 1997). This chapter reviews these three methods and uses hypothesized and real data examples for that purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Beal SL, Sheiner LB (1996) A note on the use of Laplace’s approximations for non-linear mixed-effects models. Biometrika 83:447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg CB (2000) Commentary: ruminations on the intent to treat. Control Clin Trials 21:241–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckman AJ, Sheiner LB, Beal SL (1984) NONMEM user guide: part V. NONMEM Project Group, University of California, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleophas TJ, Tuinenburg E, Van der Meulen J, Kauw FH (1996) Wine drinking and other dietary characteristics in males under 60 before and after acute myocardial infarction. Angiology 47:789–796

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF (2006a) Statistics applied to clinical trials. Springer, New York, pp 141–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF (2006b) Statistics applied to clinical trials. Springer, New York, pp 329–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran WG (1968) The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24:295–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hullsiek KH, Louis TA (2002) Propensity scores modeling strategies for the causal analysis of observational data. Biostatistics 3:179–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1997) Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity score. Ann Intern Med 127:757–763

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS. http://www.prw.le.ac.uk/epidemiol/personal/ajs22/meta/macros.sas. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

  • Sobb M, Cleophas TJ, Hadj-Chaib A, Zwinderman AH (2008) Clinical trials: odds ratios, why to assess them, and how to do so. Am J Ther 15:44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soledad Cepeda M, Boston R, Farrer JT, Strom BL (2003) Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity scores when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 158:280–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Statistical Software. http://www.spss.com. Accessed 15 Dec 2011

  • Wickramaratne PJ, Holford TR (1987) Confounding in epidemiological studies: the adequacy of the control groups as a measure of confounding. Biometrics 43:751–765

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cleophas, T.J., Zwinderman, A.H. (2012). Confounding. In: Statistics Applied to Clinical Studies. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2863-9_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics