Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42781650›Full record

ArticleObservational studies2026

The Journey of Cornfield's Inequalities and How They Shaped Modern Sensitivity Analysis.

Zhixin Lun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Zhixin LunDepartment of Biostatistics and InformaticsColorado School of Public HealthUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusAurora, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cornfield et al.'s 1959 paper introduced a seminal framework for evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding by quantifying the strength an unobserved factor would need to overturn an observed association. This commentary revisits Cornfield's original inequalities, clarifying their interpretation, and highlighting the reverse-reasoning principle that underlies modern sensitivity analysis. We summarize key methodological extensions developed by later researchers-ranging from conditional independence formulations and multiplicative bounds to the sharpened limits that led to the E-value, and illustrate how these refinements broadened the applicability of Cornfield's logic. Finally, we discuss the continued influence of Cornfield-type reasoning across epidemiology and related fields, where sensitivity analysis has become an essential component of study design and causal interpretation. More than six decades later, Cornfield's insight remains a foundational pillar of causal inference, guiding researchers in assessing the robustness of empirical findings to unmeasured confounding.

Indexed as

Cornfield’s inequalityE-valueSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID42781650
PMCPMC13600445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.