» Articles » PMID: 23371353

The Table 2 Fallacy: Presenting and Interpreting Confounder and Modifier Coefficients

Overview
Journal Am J Epidemiol
Specialty Public Health
Date 2013 Feb 2
PMID 23371353
Citations 421
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

It is common to present multiple adjusted effect estimates from a single model in a single table. For example, a table might show odds ratios for one or more exposures and also for several confounders from a single logistic regression. This can lead to mistaken interpretations of these estimates. We use causal diagrams to display the sources of the problems. Presentation of exposure and confounder effect estimates from a single model may lead to several interpretative difficulties, inviting confusion of direct-effect estimates with total-effect estimates for covariates in the model. These effect estimates may also be confounded even though the effect estimate for the main exposure is not confounded. Interpretation of these effect estimates is further complicated by heterogeneity (variation, modification) of the exposure effect measure across covariate levels. We offer suggestions to limit potential misunderstandings when multiple effect estimates are presented, including precise distinction between total and direct effect measures from a single model, and use of multiple models tailored to yield total-effect estimates for covariates.

Citing Articles

Composite variable bias: causal analysis of weight outcomes.

Ali R, Prestwich A, Ge J, Griffiths C, Allmendinger R, Shahgholian A Int J Obes (Lond). 2025; .

PMID: 40057559 DOI: 10.1038/s41366-025-01732-6.


Experience sampling method studies in physical activity research: the relevance of causal reasoning.

Poppe L, De Paepe A, Deforche B, Van Dyck D, Loeys T, Van Cauwenberg J Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025; 22(1):28.

PMID: 40045348 PMC: 11884166. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-025-01723-w.


Confounder adjustment in observational studies investigating multiple risk factors: a methodological study.

Gao Y, Xiang L, Yi H, Song J, Sun D, Xu B BMC Med. 2025; 23(1):132.

PMID: 40038753 PMC: 11881322. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-025-03957-8.


Applying a diffusion of innovations framework to characterise diffusion groups and more effectively reach late adopters: a cross-sectional study on COVID-19 vaccinations in Canada in late 2021.

Memedovich A, Steele B, Orr T, Hollis A, Salmon C, Hu J BMJ Public Health. 2025; 3(1):e000926.

PMID: 40017953 PMC: 11812860. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-000926.


Intersecting Paths to Health: A Factor Analysis Approach to Socioeconomic and Environmental Determinants in Indiana.

Ghorbany S, Hu M, Yao S, Wang C, Sisk M, Nguyen Q Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 22(2).

PMID: 40003445 PMC: 11855551. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph22020219.


References
1.
Greenland S, Maldonado G . The interpretation of multiplicative-model parameters as standardized parameters. Stat Med. 1994; 13(10):989-99. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780131002. View

2.
Cole S, Stuart E . Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(1):107-15. PMC: 2915476. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq084. View

3.
Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins J . Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999; 10(1):37-48. View

4.
VanderWeele T, Vansteelandt S . Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(12):1339-48. PMC: 2998205. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq332. View

5.
Howe C, Cole S, Westreich D, Greenland S, Napravnik S, Eron Jr J . Splines for trend analysis and continuous confounder control. Epidemiology. 2011; 22(6):874-5. PMC: 3192444. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823029dd. View