ArticleObservational studies2026
Getting to Know Worst-Case Confounders.
Article in Observational studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since Cornfield, Haenszel, Hammond, Lilienfeld, Shimkin, and Wynder (1959)'s seminal contribution, many sensitivity analyses have been introduced. Modern-day approaches to sensitivity analysis aim to impose relatively little structure on the unobserved confounder. However, while a sensitivity analysis may not rely on many assumptions on the unobserved confounder, the worst-case bounds that are solved for within a sensitivity analysis are often only realized when a hypothetical confounder takes on a specific form, which is not always made explicit. In the following commentary, we consider several leading sensitivity analysis approaches and review what is known about the structure of the confounder at which the worst-case bounds are realized. We show that the type of sensitivity model used can induce different data generating processes for the worst-case confounders. We argue that understanding the structure of the omitted confounder implied by the worst-case bounds is crucial for more transparent sensitivity analysis, and we suggest directions for future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.