Confounding in Observational Studies Explained is a research paper published in The Open Epidemiology Journal (2012). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.565. It has been cited 7 times, with 7 citing works in its 1-hop citation network.
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.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.312
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0.253
From 5 citing papers with measurable signal
DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 55% comes from its base citations and 45% from the citation network (5 citing papers contributed measurable signal).
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.
Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.