Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
Confounder adjustment in observational studies investigating multiple risk factors: a methodological study
Yinyan Gao1, Linghui Xiang1, Hang Yi2
1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Background:
Confounder adjustment is critical for accurate causal inference in observational studies. However, the appropriateness of methods for confounder adjustment in studies investigating multiple risk factors, where the factors are not simply mutually confounded, is often overlooked. This study aims to summarise the methods for confounder adjustment and the related issues in studies investigating multiple risk factors.
Methods:
A methodological study was performed. We searched PubMed from January 2018 to March 2023 to identify cohort and case-control studies investigating multiple risk factors for three chronic diseases (cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia). Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. The study objectives were grouped into two categories: widely exploring potential risk factors and examining specific risk factors. The methods for confounder adjustment were classified based on a summarisation of the included studies, identifying six categories: (1) each risk factor was adjusted for potential confounders separately (the recommended method); (2) all risk factors were mutually adjusted (i.e. including all factors in a multivariable model); (3) all risk factors were adjusted for the same confounders separately; (4) all risk factors were adjusted for the same confounders with some factors being mutually adjusted; (5) all risk factors were adjusted for the same confounders with mutual adjustment among them being unclear; and (6) unable to judge. All data were descriptively analysed.
Results:
A total of 162 studies were included, with 88 (54.3%) exploring potential risk factors and 74 (45.7%) examining specific risk factors. The current status of confounder adjustment was unsatisfactory: only ten studies (6.2%) used the recommended method, all of which aimed at examining several specific risk factors; in contrast, mutual adjustment was adopted in over 70% of the studies. The remaining studies either adjusted for the same confounders across all risk factors, or unable to judge.
Conclusions:
There is substantial variation in the methods for confounder adjustment among studies investigating multiple risk factors. Mutual adjustment was the most commonly adopted method, which might lead to overadjustment bias and misleading effect estimates. Future research should avoid indiscriminately including all risk factors in a multivariable model to prevent inappropriate adjustment.
More Related Videos
06:48Lexical Decision Task for Studying Written Word Recognition in Adults with and without Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: June 25, 2019
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Odds Ratio
Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...