Commentary: Continuing the E-value ’s post-publication peer review

An association is taken seriously as possibly causal and then is found to have been the spurious spawn of one or more confounders, hitherto unknown and even unsuspected. This nightmarish scenario is possible, but how often has it actually occurred? For all the fear it engenders, one might think it has been commonplace in epidemiological history. One response to it is the E-value,1 –6 a measure its developers have lobbied to become ‘standard practice’ and ‘reported routinely’ in ‘all observational studies intended to produce evidence for causality’.2

Source: International Journal of Epidemiology - September 2, 2020 Category: Epidemiology Source Type: research