Design Strategies and Statistical methods in Analytic Epidemiology Flashcards
Analytic studies
evaluate hypotheses about associations between exposure and outcome variables; attempt to answer why and how a health-related state or event occurred; have a comparison group
Observational exploratory study
researchers examine relationships between variables; useful for identifying cause-effect relationships
Observational analytic study
begins with a hypothesis and evaluates associations between exposure and outcome variables
Types of analytic observational studies
case-control studies
cohort
case-crossover
nested case-control
Incidence
new cases
Prevalence
existing cases
Case-control study
investigates the presence of a potential risk factor between cases and controls
Exposure status
collected in a similar manner between cases/controls to avoid bias
Measuring the association between exposure and outcome variables is
the appropriate measure of association to use as it depends on the nature of the data
Bias
systematic error in the collection or interpretation of epidemiologic data
Results in inaccurate over or under estimation of the association between exposure and outcome
bias
Types of bias in case-control studies
selection, observational, misclassification, confounding
Confounding
an outside factor is associated with a disease outcome and is independently linked with an exposure (age, sex, education level, smoking)
Controlling for bias
matching
Matching
a strategy in which the distribution of potential confouding factors is forced to be similar between the cases and controls
2 types of selection bias in cohort studies
healthy worker effect, loss to follow-up
2 types of observation bias in case-control studies
recall, interviewer
Recall bias
differential accuracy of recall about past exposure between cases (with disease) and controls (without disease)
Interviewer bias
differential accuracy of exposure information due to the interviewer probing questions differently between cases and controls
Misclassification
error in classifying exposure or outcome status
Several variables considered as potential confounders
age, sex, educational level, smoking
Confounder
X
Strengths of Case-Control Studies
effective for rare outcomes; requires less time, money due to small size; yields the odds ratio (good estimate of relative risk)
Bias
deviation of the results from the truth
Weaknesses of Case-Control Studies
limited to one outcome condition; does not provide incidence, relative risk, or natural history; less effective than a cohort study at establishing time sequence of events; potential recall and interviewer bias; potential survivor bias; does not yeild incidence and prevalence
Ratio for Case-Control studies
Odds Ratio (paired data)
Ratio for Cohort (attack rates)
Risk Ratio
Ratio for Case Crossover
Odds Ratio (unpaired data)
Ratio for Cohort (peron-time rates)
Rate Ratio
Prospective Cohort Study
goes forward in time; measures exposure status and association to an outcome
Retrospective Cohort Study
goes back in time; identifies a cohort with already available exposure and outcome data
Effect Modification
association between an exposure and disease outcome is changed by the level of an extrinsic factor
Selection bias
the selection of cases and controls based in some way on the exposure
Healthy worker effect
occurs in cohort studies when workers represent the exposed group, and a sample from the general population represents the unexposed group
Loss to follow up
occurs in cohort studies when researchers lose contact with study participants, resulting in unavailable outcome data on those people
Cases
with health-related state/event
Control
without health-realted state/event
Odds ratio
measures strength or association between exposure and disease variables
2x2 contigency table
commonly used to summarize the relationship between exposure and health outcome variables
What does the Odds ratio (OR) compare?
the odds of the disease among exposed individuals to the odds of disease among unexposed individuals
Observer bias
Misclassification of data because of differences in observer interpretation or expectations regarding the study