Hill's criteria

Jump to: navigation
Web Resources for Hill's criteria
 ICD-10 search
Relevant Clinical Literature
Pubmed on Hill's criteria
RCT with Hill's criteria
Systematic reviews of Hill's criteria
Hill's criteria in N Eng J Med, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ
Hill's criteria in Cochrane Collaboration
TRIP Database on Hill's criteria
Google Scholar on Hill's criteria
Bandolier on Hill's criteria
UK Guidance
NHS Evidence on Hill's criteria
Nice Guidance on Hill's criteria
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases -DARE & NHS EED (evaluates reliability of research)
SNOMED search
NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries on Hill's criteria
Other Wikis
Wikipedia on Hill's criteria (Less technical, ? quality control)

Hill’s criteria are useful for evaluating whether an (environmental) association is likely to be causal. Most statistical associations will not be causal.

  • Strength
    • What is the degree to which the exposure is associated with the outcome ?
  • Consistency
    • Has the association been repeatedly observed by different persons, in different places, circumstances, and times ?
  • Specificity
    • Is the observed association limited to the exposure and outcome?
  • Temporality
    • Does a particular intervention lead to disease or do early stages of disease lead to those with the disease undertaking a particular confounding intervention
  • Biologic gradient
    • Is there a dose–response relationship between the exposure and outcome?
  • Plausibility
    • Is there a physiological basis for the observed association?
  • Coherence
    • Does the “cause-and-effect interpretation” of the association “seriously conflict” with “generally known facts about the natural history and biology of the disease”?
  • Experiment
    • Is the frequency of associated events [outcomes] affected by actions to prevent the exposure?
  • Analogy
    • Does an exposure with a similar action (physiologically) cause the outcome?

Adapted from Hill[1]


  1. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:295-300