Do quantitative bias analyses accurately characterize bias due to uncontrolled confounding?

Authors

Tsion A Armidie, Lindsay J Collin, Richard F MacLehose, Thomas P Ahern, Timothy L Lash

Published in

Annals of epidemiology. Pages 110270. Aug 31, 2026. Epub Aug 31, 2026.

Abstract

Adjustment for a sufficient set of confounders removes bias. When a confounder is unmeasured, approaches exist to estimate bias. Confounders are often correlated, so analyses that ignore correlations overstate bias.
Using NHANES III, we examined the association between Healthy Eating Index (HEI) and all-cause mortality (n=2417). A fully adjusted model included tobacco use, sex, age, hypertension, BMI, education, and physical activity. Hazard ratios (HR) that would have been observed-had one of hypertension, BMI, education, or physical activity been "unmeasured"-were estimated by leaving them out. We then performed bias analysis for the unmeasured confounders using uncorrelated bias parameter estimates.
The fully adjusted HR comparing HEI Quintile 1 vs. 5 was 1.72 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.40). After treating variables as "unmeasured" confounders, HRs changed little (range: 1.73 to 1.98). Bias-adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.72 to 1.98 suggesting that substantial unmeasured confounding would be required to explain the associations.
Due to correlations between covariates, the additional bias attributable to unmeasured variables was minimal. QBA produced estimates that often overestimated the impact of the unmeasured confounders. Although QBA is useful for evaluating unmeasured confounding, it may not precisely quantify the strength of bias.

PMID:
42674085
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 01 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.