Master Course based on Rothman: Epidemiology chapter 15 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 75
About This Presentation
Title:

Master Course based on Rothman: Epidemiology chapter 15

Description:

Males report twice as many partners as females do. Information bias ... Trad. Case-Control. Logistic regression. Disease: lung cancer. Exposure: smoking. H.S. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:547
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 76
Provided by: heins1
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Master Course based on Rothman: Epidemiology chapter 15


1
Master Coursebased onRothman Epidemiology
chapter 1-5
  • Hein Stigum
  • Presentation, data and programs at
  • http//folk.uio.no/heins/

Dec-09
H.S.
1
2
Agenda
  • Introduction
  • Epidemiological thinking
  • Concepts
  • Causation
  • Generalization
  • Methods
  • Measures
  • Design
  • Bias

Dec-09
H.S.
2
3
1. Introduction
Dec-09
H.S.
3
4
Epidemiology
  • Study of exposure and disease
  • Air pollution Heart disease
  • Obesity Diabetes
  • Education Exercise
  • Questions
  • How much exposure?
  • How much disease?
  • More disease among exposed?

5
Epidemiologic information
  • Experiments
  • Randomized Controlled Trials
  • Observational data
  • Registries
  • Medical birth -, Cancer -, Patient registry
  • Surveys
  • Mother and Child Cohort
  • Linking

Observational data ? Systematic errors
www.fhi.no
6
Downs syndrome
Age
Downs
Parity
Confounding
7
Reading problems
  • Study
  • 5000 adults
  • Questionnaire
  • 1000 respond
  • 5 reading problems

Selection bias
8
Sexual partners
  • Males report twice as many partners as females do

Information bias
9
2. Causation
Dec-09
H.S.
9
10
Component-, sufficient cause
Switch
wire
electricity
bulb
light
Pie Sufficient cause for light Parts
Component causes
11
Causal pies
  • Component cause
  • Sufficient cause
  • Necessary cause
  • Strength
  • Interaction
  • Induction time
  • Attributable fraction

Dec-09
H.S.
11
12
Association versus cause
  • Observe
  • Smoking associated with Lung Cancer
  • Infer cause
  • Observe
  • Yellow fingers associated with Lung Cancer
  • Infer cause

13
Generalization
Dec-09
H.S.
13
14
Generalization
  • Do the results apply outside the sample?
  • Statistical generalization
  • Prevalence of smoking among males, generalize to
    females?
  • Representative sample
  • Biological generalization
  • Animal studies, generalize to humans?
  • Information from outside the study
  • Homogenous sample

Dec-09
H.S.
14
15
Summing up
  • Disease
  • Exposure ? Disease
  • Observational data
  • Cause can not be observed directly
  • Generalize representative homogeneous

16
3. Measures
Dec-09
H.S.
16
17
Epidemiological measures
  • Frequency
  • prevalence
  • incidence
  • Association
  • Risk difference
  • Risk ratio
  • Odds ratio
  • Impact
  • Attributable fraction

How much disease?
Dec-09
H.S.
17
18
Mathematical concepts
  • Proportion
  • Rate
  • Odds

Risk, probability,
Km/h
Odds lives at one place in time
Dec-09
H.S.
18
19
Frequency measures
Dec-09
H.S.
19
20
Disease frequency
Theoretical concept
Estimator
!
Dec-09
H.S.
20
21
Disease frequency depicted
t
a
Risk time
Dec-09
H.S.
21
22
Prevalence example
Dec-09
H.S.
22
23
Incidence proportion example
1. If no loss to follow up
2. If loss to follow up
Dec-09
H.S.
23
24
Incidence rate (small cohort)
Assumption Can only get the disease once
Dec-09
H.S.
24
25
Incidence rate (large cohort)
1.
2.
3.
Dec-09
H.S.
25
26
Incidence of hip fracture, age 65
Incidence rate pr 10 000 person years
(Lofthus et al. 2001)
Dec-09
H.S.
26
27
Other measures
  • Attack rate risk of infection
  • Case fatality rate risk of death if ill

28
Epidemiological measures
  • Frequency
  • prevalence
  • incidence
  • Effect
  • Risk difference
  • Risk ratio
  • Odds ratio
  • Impact
  • Attributable fraction

How much disease?
More disease among exposed?
Dec-09
H.S.
28
29
Effect measures
Dec-09
H.S.
29
30
Causal effect
Risk is not a measure of causal effect, need a
contrast.
Contrast
Counterfactual
Real
31
Causal effect 2
  • Ideal
  • Counterfactual same subjects same time
  • Real
  • Crossover same subjects diff. time
  • Randomized exchangeable same time
  • Observational adjust for confounding same
    time

32
Association measures
  • More disease among exposed?
  • Compare frequency among exposed1 and unexposed0
  • Difference
  • Risk Difference
  • Ratio
  • Risk Ratio
  • Odds Ratio

0no effect
1no effect
1no effect
Dec-09
H.S.
32
33
RR and RD example
Disease lung cancer Exposure smoking
Dec-09
H.S.
33
34
OR example
Disease lung cancer Exposure smoking
  • Why use OR?
  • Trad. Case-Control
  • Logistic regression

Dec-09
H.S.
34
35
Relative risk
Risk ratio rate ratio for short-term
risks. Both are termed relative risk
Dec-09
H.S.
35
36
Bullying, OR example
  • Bullying in the nordic countries
  • 17 114 children, 2 584 bullied

Dec-09
H.S.
36
37
Dec-09
H.S.
37
38
RR and OR depicted
Risks and Risk Ratio
Odds and Odds Ratio
Dec-09
H.S.
38
39
Epidemiological measures
  • Frequency
  • prevalence
  • incidence
  • Effect
  • Risk difference
  • Risk ratio
  • Odds ratio
  • Impact
  • Attributable fraction

How much disease?
More disease among exposed?
How important?
Dec-09
H.S.
39
40
Impact measures
Dec-09
H.S.
40
41
Attributable fraction
  • Among exposed
  • In population

42
Attributable fraction example
43
Measures, Summing up
  • Frequency
  • prevalence
  • incidence risk, rate
  • Effect contrast R1 , R0
  • RD
  • RR
  • OR ORRR (if rare disease)
  • Impact of cases
  • Afe , Afp (may sum gt100)

Dec-09
H.S.
43
44
4. Design
Dec-09
H.S.
44
45
True or false?
  • It takes 2 to tango
  • It takes 3 chords to play the blues
  • It takes 4 numbers to be an epidemiologist

Dec-09
H.S.
45
46
The 2 by 2 table
.01.01.1 .01 .13
Add 100 to cell d .01.01.1 .005.125
Add 10 to cell c .01.01.05 .01.08
To increase power Cohort balance
exposure Case-Control balance disease
Dec-09
H.S.
46
47
3 examples
  • Gender and Smoking
  • Exercise and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)
  • Genes and Diabetes type 1

What design should we use?
  • Considerations
  • Disease rare / common
  • Follow up time short / long
  • Reversed causality ?
  • Recall bias ?

Dec-09
H.S.
47
48
Cross-section
Dec-09
H.S.
48
49
Time
Dec-09
H.S.
49
50
Cross-sectional example
Pro fast and inexpensive Con reversed
causality
OK
Dec-09
H.S.
50
51
Cohort
Dec-09
H.S.
51
52
Disease frequency depicted
t
a
Risk time
Dec-09
H.S.
52
53
Cohort, Risk and Odds
Pro reliable Con costly, time consuming, loss
to follow up
Dec-09
H.S.
53
54
Cohort, Rate
Previous example (Risk and Odds)
Rate 3 years follow up time
Dec-09
H.S.
54
55
Case Control studies
Dec-09
H.S.
55
56
Gene-Diabetes
Full Cohort
Case-Control
  • In practice Cases. 1-4 controls per case
  • Sample controls independent of exposure
  • Exposure back in time

Dec-09
H.S.
56
57
Gene-Diabetes
One Control per Case
Dec-09
H.S.
57
58
Case-Control studies
  • Cohort studies
  • Measure the exposure experiance of the entire
    population
  • Case-Control studies
  • Measure the exposure experiance of a sample of
    the source population of cases (base)
  • Key assumption
  • Sample controls independent of exposure (same
    sampling fraction)
  • Prospective or retrospective

Dec-09
H.S.
58
59
Traditional Case-Control
Dec-09
H.S.
59
60
Design, Summing up
61
5. Bias
Dec-09
H.S.
61
62
Precision and validity
  • Measures of populations
  • precision - random error - statistics
  • validity - systematic error epidemiology
  • Lack of validity measures are biased
  • type of bias
  • direction of the bias

Dec-09
H.S.
62
63
Type of bias
  • Selection bias
  • Are those who answer different?
  • Information bias
  • Do they tell the truth?
  • Confounding
  • Is the association a cause?

Dec-09
H.S.
63
64
Selection bias
Dec-09
H.S.
64
Dec-09
H.S.
64
65
Sources of selection bias
  • Selective response
  • sexual survey
  • Self selection
  • Nevada atom test and leukemia
  • Loss to follow up connected to disease
  • air pollution and astma
  • Healthy worker effect
  • aluminium workers and lung disease

Dec-09
H.S.
65
66
Selection bias
Population
Sample
Respons
Responders
Non-responders
Outcome
Dec-09
H.S.
66
67
Information bias
Dec-09
H.S.
67
Dec-09
H.S.
67
68
Non-differential misclassification
True smoking
10 of smokers report no smoking

Non-differential RR?
Dec-09
H.S.
68
69
Other sources of information bias
  • Not true
  • males report more partners than females
  • Not blinded
  • passive smoking and astma
  • Selective recall
  • alcohol in pregnancy and malformations

Dec-09
H.S.
69
70
Confounding
Dec-09
H.S.
70
Dec-09
H.S.
70
71
Confounding
  • Ideal
  • Same subjects are both exposed and unexposed at
    the same time, (counterfactual)
  • Practice
  • As equal as possible
  • Comparison bias
  • Confounding

Dec-09
H.S.
71
72
Downs syndrome
Age
Downs
Parity
Confounding
73
Downs syndrom, logistic regression
Crude
Adjusted
Dec-09
H.S.
73
74
Bias, Summing up
  • Random / Systematic error
  • Systematict error ? bias in measure
  • 3 types of bias
  • Selection
  • Information
  • Confounding
  • May remove bias in analysis
  • New tool Causal models

75
Epidemiology, Summing up
  • Study of exposure and disease
  • Observe association, deduce cause
  • Disease
  • prevalence, incidence (risk, rate)
  • Causal effect
  • RD, RR, OR
  • Design
  • Cross-sectional, Cohort, Case-Control
  • Observational ? bias,
  • Selection, Information, Confounding
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com