2. Artifactual associations that occur through some
error or defect in the design or execution of a study.
3. Indirect associations in which an exposure is associated with an
outcome but through a confounding variable.
have ruled out the likelihood of any of
these non-causal explanations for an
apparent association
one is left with one additional possibility: The association is causal.
can finally accept the evidence from a research
article you need to check if the researchers have
discussed their significant results in terms of
causality.
presence of an association between A and B does not tell
you anything at all about:
a) The presence of the causality
b) The direction of causality.
“To show that A has caused B (rather than B causing A, or A and
B both being caused by C [a confounder]), you need more than a
correlation coefficient” (….or a RR)6. Bradford Hill “tests for
causation” are outlined in the box below (