Enter your Email address:
Wolters Kluwer Health may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
Smith, George Davey
MRC Centre for Causal Analyses in Translational Epidemiology University of Bristol Bristol, United Kingdom Julia.Mackay@bristol.ac.uk (Smith)
In their excellent review on negative controls,1 Lipsitch and colleagues1 state they “are not aware of an example of the use of a negative control exposure to detect confounding” in an epidemiologic setting. One such explicit application of this approach relates to the use of paternal exposures as a negative control exposure for maternal exposures considered to have an intrauterine influence on offspring outcomes.2 Paternal smoking, as a negative control, may show associations with offspring outcomes similar to those of maternal smoking if the associations are generated by shared familial confounding factors or by parental genotypes transmitted to the offspring. If, however, there is an intrauterine influence, then only the maternal exposure would be expected to show an independent association with the outcome.
Figure 1 demonstrates that the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy on offspring birthweight is considerably greater than that of paternal smoking during pregnancy, and mutual adjustment (to take account of associative mating by smoking) attenuates the paternal effect to zero. This is in line with the considerable body of evidence that maternal smoking has a causal effect on offspring birthweight. There has been enthusiasm for the proposition that fetal exposure to maternal smoking leads to increased obesity in offspring.3 Although maternal smoking during pregnancy does indeed demonstrate the expected association, the strength of association with paternal smoking during pregnancy is similar before and after mutual adjustment (Fig. 2).4 This casts doubt on the causal nature of the association between intrauterine exposure to maternal smoking and offspring adiposity.
As Lipsitch and colleagues1 argue, the use of negative controls could be usefully expanded in epidemiology. If associations are found with such controls, this does not invalidate the observation under interrogation but does encourage further intense scrutiny of potential biases and confounding that may underlie what is seen.
George Davey Smith
MRC Centre for Causal Analyses in Translational Epidemiology
University of Bristol
Bristol, United Kingdom
This article has been cited 2 time(s).
© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Colleague's E-mail is Invalid
Your Name: (optional)
Separate multiple e-mails with a (;).
Thought you might appreciate this item(s) I saw at Epidemiology.
Send a copy to your email
Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.
Some error has occurred while processing your request. Please try after some time.
An Existing Folder
A New Folder
The item(s) has been successfully added to "".
Login with your LWW Journals username and password.
Username or Email:
Enter and submit the email address you registered with. An email with instructions to reset your password will be sent to that address.
Link to reset your password has been sent to specified email address.
What does "Remember me" mean?
By checking this box, you'll stay logged in until you logout. You'll get easier access to your articles, collections,
media, and all your other content, even if you close your browser or shut down your
To protect your most sensitive data and activities (like changing your password),
we'll ask you to re-enter your password when you access these services.
What if I'm on a computer that I share with others?
If you're using a public computer or you share this computer with others, we recommend
that you uncheck the "Remember me" box.
Save my selection
Article Level Metrics