Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38879863›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024

Familial confounding or measurement error? How to interpret findings from sibling and co-twin control studies.

Kristin Gustavson, Fartein Ask Torvik, George Davey Smith, Espen Røysamb, Espen M Eilertsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Etiology and correlates of alcohol misuse in early midlife.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristin GustavsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. kristin.gustavson@psykologi.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3047-3234
Fartein Ask TorvikDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Espen RøysambNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Espen M EilertsenPromenta Research Centre, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiological researchers often examine associations between risk factors and health outcomes in non-experimental designs. Observed associations may be causal or confounded by unmeasured factors. Sibling and co-twin control studies account for familial confounding by comparing exposure levels among siblings (or twins). If the exposure-outcome association is causal, the siblings should also differ regarding the outcome. However, such studies may sometimes introduce more bias than they alleviate. Measurement error in the exposure may bias results and lead to erroneous conclusions that truly causal exposure-outcome associations are confounded by familial factors. The current study used Monte Carlo simulations to examine bias due to measurement error in sibling control models when the observed exposure-outcome association is truly causal. The results showed that decreasing exposure reliability and increasing sibling-correlations in the exposure led to deflated exposure-outcome associations and inflated associations between the family mean of the exposure and the outcome. The risk of falsely concluding that causal associations were confounded was high in many situations. For example, when exposure reliability was 0.7 and the observed sibling-correlation was r = 0.4, about 30-90% of the samples (n = 2,000) provided results supporting a false conclusion of confounding, depending on how p-values were interpreted as evidence for a family effect on the outcome. The current results have practical importance for epidemiological researchers conducting or reviewing sibling and co-twin control studies and may improve our understanding of observed associations between risk factors and health outcomes. We have developed an app (SibSim) providing simulations of many situations not presented in this paper.

Indexed as

BiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicMonte Carlo MethodSiblingsCausalityFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsTwinsTwin Studies as TopicConfoundingCo-twin controlSibling control studiesSimulation studies

Identifiers

PMID38879863
PMCPMC11249619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.