Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: The use of complex statistical models to adjust for confounding is common in medical research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and adequacy of adjustment for confounding in medical articles. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: 34 scientific medical journals with a high impact factor. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of reporting on methods used to adjust for confounding in 537 original research articles published in January 1998. RESULTS: Of the 537 articles, 169 specified that adjustment for confounding was used. In 1 paper in 10, it was unclear which statistical method was used or for which variables adjustment was made. In 45% of papers, it was not clear how multicategory or continuous variables were treated in the analysis. Inadequate reporting was less frequent if an author was affiliated with a department of statistics, epidemiology, or public health and if articles were published in journals with a high impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: Details of methods used to adjust for confounding are frequently not reported in original research articles.


Journal article


Ann intern med

Publication Date





122 - 126


Confounding Factors (Epidemiology), Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Statistics as Topic