Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study

Klaus Munkholm; Maria Faurholt‐Jepsen; John P A Ioannidis; Lars G. Hemkens

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.002

Related publications

Article2017

Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding

Lars G. Hemkens, Hannah Ewald, Florian Naudet, Aviv Ladanie, Jonathan G. Shaw, Gautam Sajeev, John P A Ioannidis

Article2019

Use of E-values for addressing confounding in observational studies—an empirical assessment of the literature

Manuel R. Blum, Yuan Tan, John P A Ioannidis

Article2000

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Donna F. Stroup, Jesse A. Berlin, Sally C. Morton, Ingram Olkin, G. David Williamson, Drummond Rennie, David Moher, Betsy Jane Becker, Theresa Ann Sipe, Stephen B. Thacker

Article2009

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)—an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Julian Little, Julian P. T. Higgins, John P A Ioannidis, David Moher, France Gagnon, Erik von Elm, Muin J. Khoury, Barbara Cohen, George Davey Smith, Jeremy Grimshaw, Paul Scheet, Marta Gwinn, Robin E. Williamson, Guangyong Zou, Kim Hutchings, Candice Y. Johnson, Valerie Tait, Miriam Wiens, Jean Golding, Cornelia M. van Duijn, John McLaughlin,

Article2021

Reporting only relative effect measures was potentially misleading: some good practices for improving the soundness of epidemiological results

Marco Novelli, Alessandro Baldi Antognini, Paolo Boffetta, John P A Ioannidis, Giovanna Spatari, Francesco Saverio Violante