Abstract
Confounding is one of the most infamous bugbears of epidemiology, used by some to dismiss the field's utility outright. The subject has received considerable attention from epidemiologists and the field boasts a remarkable arsenal for addressing the issue. However, it appears that there are still misconceptions about how to identify variables that cause confounding (a lack of exchangeability) in epidemiologic practice. In this commentary, I examine whether analysis of the properties of change-in-estimate method for identification of confounding, exemplified by two highly cited papers, has been appropriately cited in published reports and whether it was utilized to improve epidemiologic practice. I conclude that the myth that a change-in-estimate criterion of 10 % is legitimate for identifying confounding persists in epidemiological practice, despite having been discredited by several independent research groups decades ago. Speculations on possible solutions to this problem are offered, but my work's main contribution is identification of a problem of how methodological advances in epidemiology may be misapplied. There currently do not exist any universal criteria for identification of confounding! "Citation without representation" or biased presentation of conclusions of methodological research may be pervasive.