4.6 Article

Quantifying biases in causal models:: Classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 300-306

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00001648-200305000-00009

Keywords

adjustment; causal diagrams; causal inference; odds ratio; relative risk; validity

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD-39746] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has long been known that stratifying on variables affected by the study exposure can create selection bias. More recently it has been shown that stratifying on a variable that precedes exposure and disease can induce confounding, even if there is no confounding in the unstratified (crude) estimate. This paper examines the relative magnitudes of these biases under some simple causal models in which the stratification variable is graphically depicted as a collider (a variable directly affected by two or more other variables in the graph). The results suggest that bias from stratifying on variables affected by exposure and disease may often be comparable in size with bias from classical confounding (bias from failing to stratify on a common cause of exposure and disease), whereas other biases from collider stratification may tend to be much smaller.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available