Biostats Flashcards
Cross-sectional study
Collects data from a group of people to assess disease frequency at a particular point in time
May show risk association, but not causality
“What’s happening?”
Measures prevalence
Case-control study
Compares group with disease to a group without disease
Looks for prior exposure/risk
Retrospective
“What happened?”
Measures odds ratio: OR = [(a/c)/(b/d)] = (ad)/(bc)
Cohort study
Compares initially disease-free people in two groups to see who develops disease: one with exposure/risk, and one without exposure/risk
Can show if exposure/risk increases disease likelihood
Retrospective OR prospective
“Who will develop/developed disease?”
Measures relative risk: RR = [a/(a+b)]/[c/(c+d)]
Twin concordance, adoption studies
Measure heritability and environmental influence
Mono- vs dizygotic twins
Siblings with biological vs adoptive parents
Clinical trial phase goals
I: Is it safe?
II: Does it work?
III: Is it as good or better than current treatments?
IV: Can it stay?
Odds ratio
Odds that a group with disease was exposed to a risk divided by the odds that the group without the disease was exposed
OR = (a/c)/(b/d) = (ad)/(bc)
Typically used for case-control studies
Relative risk
Risk of developing disease in the exposed group divided by risk in the unexposed group
RR = [a/(a+b)]/[c/(c+d)]
Typically used in cohort studies
If prevalence is low, OR ~ RR
Attributable risk
Difference in risk between exposed and unexposed groups, i.e. proportion of disease occurrences attributable to an exposure
AR = a/(a+b) - c/(c+d)
Relative risk reduction
Proportion of risk reduction attributable to an intervention as compared to a control
RRR = 1 - RR = 1 - [a/(a+b)]/[c/(c+d)]
Absolute risk reduction
Difference in risk attributable to the intervention as compared to the control
ARR = c/(c+d) - a/(a+b) = -AR
Number needed to treat
NNT = 1/ARR (treat has more letters than harm)
Number needed to harm
NNH = 1/AR
Bias in recruiting participants
Selection, sampling, referral, allocation bias
E.g. Berkson bias - study population is from a hospital and less healthy than the general population
Healthy worker effect - (opposite of Berkson)
Non-response - nonrespondents differ from participants meaningfully
Randomize to reduce
Procedure bias
Subjects in different groups are not treated the same
Includes detection bias: Those with a risk factor undergo greater diagnostic scrutiny than those without the risk
Use blinding and placebos to reduce
Recall bias
Awareness of disorder alters recall by subjects
Common in retrospective studies
Decrease time from exposure to follow-up to reduce
Observer-expectancy bias
Researcher’s belief in a treatment’s efficacy changes outcomes
AKA Pygmalion effect or self-fulfilling prophecy
Use blinding and placebos to reduce
Confounding bias
Factor is related to both exposure and outcome, but not the causal pathway
Reduce with multiple/repeat studies, matching of patients with similar characteristics in both control and treatment groups, crossover studies where subjects act as their own controls