Confounding in publications of observational intervention studies

Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(7):413-5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9126-1. Epub 2007 May 5.

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.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Bias*
  • Bibliometrics*
  • Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic*
  • Humans
  • MEDLINE / statistics & numerical data
  • Observation*
  • Periodicals as Topic / statistics & numerical data
  • Treatment Outcome