This document discusses various observational study designs used in epidemiology, including cohort and case-control studies. It provides details on how to design, conduct, and analyze these types of studies. For cohort studies, it explains how to select the cohort population and comparison groups, and describes examples like the Framingham Heart Study and Nurses' Health Study. For case-control studies, it outlines how to select cases and controls and discusses potential biases. The document emphasizes the importance of temporal sequence between exposure and outcome and minimizing biases and confounding when using these observational study designs.
This document discusses concepts of disease occurrence in epidemiology. It explains that disease results from the interaction between an external agent, a susceptible host, and environmental factors. This is known as the epidemiologic triad or triangle model. The agent refers to a pathogen, while the host is the human who can get the disease. Environmental factors include physical, climactic, socioeconomic, and other extrinsic elements that affect exposure to the agent. Disease is a result of the complex interplay between these agent, host, and environmental component causes.
This document discusses cohort studies. A cohort study compares outcomes between groups that differ in their exposure to a risk factor. It involves selecting groups of individuals, measuring their exposure to a risk factor, observing them for a defined outcome, and analyzing any association. The key elements are defining the study question, selecting and measuring exposure in study populations, following up to ascertain outcomes, and analyzing results like incidence rates and relative risks. Cohort studies provide strong evidence but require large sample sizes and long follow-up periods.
The document discusses key concepts in establishing causation in epidemiology, including the difference between association and causation. It explains that causation requires determining if a factor A truly causes outcome B rather than being a spurious relationship. Several of Hill's criteria for establishing a causal relationship are described, such as strength of association, consistency of findings, specificity of the relationship, and examining alternative explanations through study design and accounting for potential confounding factors. The document emphasizes that multiple factors often interact to cause outcomes, and that proving causation involves considering the strength and consistency of evidence rather than any single study.
The document discusses bias in epidemiology. It defines bias as systematic error that results in a mistaken estimate of an exposure's effect. It describes several types of bias including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias can occur if cases and controls are selected in a way that distorts the exposure-disease association. Information bias arises from inadequate means of obtaining information. Confounding occurs when a third factor is associated with both exposure and outcome. The document outlines various specific biases like self-selection, recall bias, and healthy worker effect. It emphasizes the importance of minimizing bias through proper study design, conduct, and analysis to obtain valid results.
This document discusses different types of observational study designs used in epidemiology, including descriptive and analytical studies. Descriptive studies like case reports and case series describe characteristics of patients but cannot determine causation. Analytical observational studies include cross-sectional studies, which measure exposures and outcomes at one time point, and cohort studies, which follow groups over time. Case-control studies sample based on outcome and look back at exposures. While observational studies are useful for hypothesis generation, experimental randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causation. The odds ratio from case-control studies approximates the risk ratio when studying rare diseases or outcomes.
This document discusses various types of biases that can occur in epidemiological studies. It defines bias as systematic error that results in an incorrect estimate of the association between exposure and disease. Several types of biases are described, including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias occurs when the study population is not representative of the target population and can arise from inappropriate definitions of eligibility, sampling frames, or follow-up. Information bias results from inaccurate or missing data.
This document discusses concepts of disease occurrence in epidemiology. It explains that disease results from the interaction between an external agent, a susceptible host, and environmental factors. This is known as the epidemiologic triad or triangle model. The agent refers to a pathogen, while the host is the human who can get the disease. Environmental factors include physical, climactic, socioeconomic, and other extrinsic elements that affect exposure to the agent. Disease is a result of the complex interplay between these agent, host, and environmental component causes.
This document discusses cohort studies. A cohort study compares outcomes between groups that differ in their exposure to a risk factor. It involves selecting groups of individuals, measuring their exposure to a risk factor, observing them for a defined outcome, and analyzing any association. The key elements are defining the study question, selecting and measuring exposure in study populations, following up to ascertain outcomes, and analyzing results like incidence rates and relative risks. Cohort studies provide strong evidence but require large sample sizes and long follow-up periods.
The document discusses key concepts in establishing causation in epidemiology, including the difference between association and causation. It explains that causation requires determining if a factor A truly causes outcome B rather than being a spurious relationship. Several of Hill's criteria for establishing a causal relationship are described, such as strength of association, consistency of findings, specificity of the relationship, and examining alternative explanations through study design and accounting for potential confounding factors. The document emphasizes that multiple factors often interact to cause outcomes, and that proving causation involves considering the strength and consistency of evidence rather than any single study.
The document discusses bias in epidemiology. It defines bias as systematic error that results in a mistaken estimate of an exposure's effect. It describes several types of bias including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias can occur if cases and controls are selected in a way that distorts the exposure-disease association. Information bias arises from inadequate means of obtaining information. Confounding occurs when a third factor is associated with both exposure and outcome. The document outlines various specific biases like self-selection, recall bias, and healthy worker effect. It emphasizes the importance of minimizing bias through proper study design, conduct, and analysis to obtain valid results.
This document discusses different types of observational study designs used in epidemiology, including descriptive and analytical studies. Descriptive studies like case reports and case series describe characteristics of patients but cannot determine causation. Analytical observational studies include cross-sectional studies, which measure exposures and outcomes at one time point, and cohort studies, which follow groups over time. Case-control studies sample based on outcome and look back at exposures. While observational studies are useful for hypothesis generation, experimental randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causation. The odds ratio from case-control studies approximates the risk ratio when studying rare diseases or outcomes.
This document discusses various types of biases that can occur in epidemiological studies. It defines bias as systematic error that results in an incorrect estimate of the association between exposure and disease. Several types of biases are described, including selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias occurs when the study population is not representative of the target population and can arise from inappropriate definitions of eligibility, sampling frames, or follow-up. Information bias results from inaccurate or missing data.
A principal aim of epidemiology is to assess the cause of disease. However, since most epidemiological studies are by nature observational rather than experimental, a number of possible explanations for an observed association need to be considered before we can infer a cause-effect relationship exists.
What is Cohort?
Indication and Elements of Cohort Study.
What is Relative risk and Attributable risk, and its interpretation?
Advantages & disadvantages of Cohort study.
Difference between Case control & Cohort study.
Cross sectional study by Dr Abhishek Kumarak07mail
This document discusses cross-sectional studies. It defines a cross-sectional study as an observational analytical study that determines exposure and disease simultaneously. Both chronic and acute diseases can be studied, and it provides a snapshot of disease distribution in a population. Cross-sectional studies can be descriptive, providing information on single or multiple variables, or analytical, assessing associations between variables. Key steps include identifying a reference population, determining sample size, sampling, data collection, and analysis of prevalence and prevalence ratios. Advantages are quick results and cost-effectiveness while disadvantages are inability to determine disease incidence or prove causality.
A systematic review is a rigorous analysis of published research on a focused question that collects and summarizes the evidence. It contrasts with an overview, which may include non-research articles and be influenced by other evidence. Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine results from multiple studies. To ensure validity, meta-analyses must have a well-defined methodology, including comprehensive searches and duplicate screening and data extraction to reduce bias. Important factors include assessing whether all relevant studies were found and the sources searched, as well as controlling for biases such as from selective data extraction or funding influences.
This document provides an overview of non-randomized control trials. It discusses reasons why non-randomized studies are sometimes necessary, including ethical or feasibility concerns. It describes different types of non-randomized study designs like uncontrolled trials, natural experiments, before-after studies with and without controls, and quasi-experimental designs. It also discusses threats to internal validity in these designs like selection bias, and methods to adjust for these biases like regression and propensity score matching. The document emphasizes that while non-randomized studies can provide useful evidence, randomization is preferable when possible to minimize biases.
Observational analytical study: Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort stu...Prabesh Ghimire
This presentation provides overview of three observational analytical studies: cross-sectional study design, case-control study design and cohort study design
This journal club presentation summarizes an article on elderly abuse experienced by older adults living in Kathmandu, Nepal prior to living in old age homes. A cross-sectional study was conducted using interviews and questionnaires of older adults living in selected old age homes. The results found that 58% of respondents reported experiencing at least one form of abuse such as neglect, emotional abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse, or sexual abuse prior to living in an old age home. The most common abuse was neglect. The study recommends that the government take action to protect quality of life for elderly and further in-depth research is needed.
Introduction to meta-analysis (1612_MA_workshop)Ahmed Negida
This document provides an overview of a meta-analysis workshop. It will introduce descriptive and inferential statistics, the concept of meta-analysis, and meta-analysis software and models. The workshop covers new topics like quality effects meta-analysis, heterogeneity models, and assessment of publication bias. It explains that simply averaging study results is incorrect, and meta-analysis statistically combines studies while weighting them by size and power to provide a single pooled effect estimate. Meta-analysis has advantages like larger power but must address heterogeneity and differences between studies.
This document discusses different types of error and bias that can occur in epidemiological studies. It defines random error as occurring due to chance and resulting in imprecise measures, while systematic error or bias results in invalid measures that are not true. Types of bias discussed include selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias can arise from how cases and controls are selected, while information bias occurs when exposure or disease status is incorrectly classified. The document emphasizes the importance of reducing both random and systematic errors to obtain valid study results.
Lecture for Post and Undergraduate.
From the past two decades Non Communicable diseases are increasing in both developing and developed countries due to which developing are experiencing double burden of diseases.
Bias, confounding and fallacies in epidemiologyTauseef Jawaid
This document discusses three major threats to internal validity in epidemiology: bias, confounding, and fallacies. It focuses on defining and providing examples of bias, specifically selection bias and information bias. Selection bias can occur when comparison groups are not representative of the target populations due to factors like non-random selection or differential loss to follow up. Information bias, also called misclassification bias, results from errors in measuring exposures or outcomes, which can be differential or non-differential. Methods to control for biases like blinding subjects and using multiple questions are also outlined.
Randomized controlled trial: Going for the GoldGaurav Kamboj
Dr. Gaurav Kamboj's document discusses the hierarchy of evidence and research designs. It provides background on the history of randomization in research from its first use in 1747 to establish the gold standard of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The document describes the basic design of RCTs and different types of RCT study designs including parallel, crossover, factorial, and cluster designs. It outlines the basic steps to conduct an RCT including developing a protocol, selecting study populations, random allocation of subjects, intervention/manipulation, follow-up, and outcome assessment.
This document provides an overview of systematic literature reviews. It defines systematic reviews as reviews that use explicit and reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research to answer a specific question. The key steps outlined include developing a protocol, formulating a review question using PICO elements, establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria, systematically searching literature sources, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing results, and interpreting findings. Examples are provided for many of the steps like developing search strategies, creating logs to document the process, and tools for summarizing evidence like PRISMA diagrams and data tables.
This document discusses the validity and reliability of analytical tests used for screening and diagnosis. It defines key terms like sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and discusses how changing cutoff levels can impact false positives and negatives. Screening tests are used to separate populations into those with and without a disease, while considering a test's accuracy. Continuous variable tests may require an artificial cutoff versus dichotomous screening tests. The document also examines how prevalence impacts predictive value and how using multiple screening tests can improve accuracy.
The study presents a protocol to evaluate combining school and household interventions to reduce excessive weight gain in students in Brazil. It is a randomized community trial called PAAPPAS that will involve 2500 students from 18 schools. Schools will be randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. The intervention group will receive primary interventions led by trained teachers on healthy lifestyle and secondary interventions for overweight students through monthly home visits. Outcomes will be measured through questionnaires, anthropometric measurements, and assessing food consumption and physical activity to see if the interventions can reduce BMI levels. The study aims to provide evidence on whether integrating school and primary health care can prevent excessive weight gain in adolescents.
This document discusses key concepts in epidemiology including definitions of disease, illness, and sickness. It describes the spectrum and "iceberg phenomenon" of disease, where most cases remain undiagnosed. Theories of disease causation are outlined, from older theories to modern concepts like the epidemiological triad/tetrad involving agents, hosts, and environments over time. Examples of risk factors, risk groups, and models of causation like the web and wheel of causation are provided. The natural history of disease progression is also addressed. Tuberculosis is used as an example to illustrate the interplay between infectious agents, human hosts, and social/environmental determinants of disease.
this presentation takes you through the concept of association observed between variables in a study and how could it become a causative association in step-wise manner.Exemplify using Bradford hill criteria. slides after references are extra slides not covered in the presentation.
Observational descriptive study: case report, case series & ecological studyPrabesh Ghimire
This document discusses different types of research designs, including observational and intervention designs. It focuses on non-intervention designs like case reports, case series, and cross-sectional studies. Case reports describe the occurrence, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of an individual patient, especially unusual cases. Case series describe aspects of a disease or treatment by following a group of patients with common characteristics. Both case reports and case series are useful for generating hypotheses but have limitations due to lack of a control group.
This document provides information on epidemiological study designs, including analytical studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies. It defines epidemiology as the study of health-related states in populations. Case-control studies look backward from the outcome to exposures, comparing cases to controls. Cohort studies follow groups over time to examine exposure-outcome relationships. The key difference is that cohort studies measure incidence while case-control studies measure odds ratios. Selection of appropriate study populations and controls is important to minimize biases.
This document provides an overview of case-control studies, including:
- Case-control studies compare characteristics of people with a disease (cases) to people without the disease (controls) to identify potential risk factors.
- Key components include clearly defining the disease, selecting representative cases and controls, measuring exposures that occurred before disease onset, and accounting for potential confounding factors.
- The odds ratio is used to analyze if cases had higher or lower odds of exposure compared to controls, indicating increased or decreased risk.
A principal aim of epidemiology is to assess the cause of disease. However, since most epidemiological studies are by nature observational rather than experimental, a number of possible explanations for an observed association need to be considered before we can infer a cause-effect relationship exists.
What is Cohort?
Indication and Elements of Cohort Study.
What is Relative risk and Attributable risk, and its interpretation?
Advantages & disadvantages of Cohort study.
Difference between Case control & Cohort study.
Cross sectional study by Dr Abhishek Kumarak07mail
This document discusses cross-sectional studies. It defines a cross-sectional study as an observational analytical study that determines exposure and disease simultaneously. Both chronic and acute diseases can be studied, and it provides a snapshot of disease distribution in a population. Cross-sectional studies can be descriptive, providing information on single or multiple variables, or analytical, assessing associations between variables. Key steps include identifying a reference population, determining sample size, sampling, data collection, and analysis of prevalence and prevalence ratios. Advantages are quick results and cost-effectiveness while disadvantages are inability to determine disease incidence or prove causality.
A systematic review is a rigorous analysis of published research on a focused question that collects and summarizes the evidence. It contrasts with an overview, which may include non-research articles and be influenced by other evidence. Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine results from multiple studies. To ensure validity, meta-analyses must have a well-defined methodology, including comprehensive searches and duplicate screening and data extraction to reduce bias. Important factors include assessing whether all relevant studies were found and the sources searched, as well as controlling for biases such as from selective data extraction or funding influences.
This document provides an overview of non-randomized control trials. It discusses reasons why non-randomized studies are sometimes necessary, including ethical or feasibility concerns. It describes different types of non-randomized study designs like uncontrolled trials, natural experiments, before-after studies with and without controls, and quasi-experimental designs. It also discusses threats to internal validity in these designs like selection bias, and methods to adjust for these biases like regression and propensity score matching. The document emphasizes that while non-randomized studies can provide useful evidence, randomization is preferable when possible to minimize biases.
Observational analytical study: Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort stu...Prabesh Ghimire
This presentation provides overview of three observational analytical studies: cross-sectional study design, case-control study design and cohort study design
This journal club presentation summarizes an article on elderly abuse experienced by older adults living in Kathmandu, Nepal prior to living in old age homes. A cross-sectional study was conducted using interviews and questionnaires of older adults living in selected old age homes. The results found that 58% of respondents reported experiencing at least one form of abuse such as neglect, emotional abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse, or sexual abuse prior to living in an old age home. The most common abuse was neglect. The study recommends that the government take action to protect quality of life for elderly and further in-depth research is needed.
Introduction to meta-analysis (1612_MA_workshop)Ahmed Negida
This document provides an overview of a meta-analysis workshop. It will introduce descriptive and inferential statistics, the concept of meta-analysis, and meta-analysis software and models. The workshop covers new topics like quality effects meta-analysis, heterogeneity models, and assessment of publication bias. It explains that simply averaging study results is incorrect, and meta-analysis statistically combines studies while weighting them by size and power to provide a single pooled effect estimate. Meta-analysis has advantages like larger power but must address heterogeneity and differences between studies.
This document discusses different types of error and bias that can occur in epidemiological studies. It defines random error as occurring due to chance and resulting in imprecise measures, while systematic error or bias results in invalid measures that are not true. Types of bias discussed include selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias can arise from how cases and controls are selected, while information bias occurs when exposure or disease status is incorrectly classified. The document emphasizes the importance of reducing both random and systematic errors to obtain valid study results.
Lecture for Post and Undergraduate.
From the past two decades Non Communicable diseases are increasing in both developing and developed countries due to which developing are experiencing double burden of diseases.
Bias, confounding and fallacies in epidemiologyTauseef Jawaid
This document discusses three major threats to internal validity in epidemiology: bias, confounding, and fallacies. It focuses on defining and providing examples of bias, specifically selection bias and information bias. Selection bias can occur when comparison groups are not representative of the target populations due to factors like non-random selection or differential loss to follow up. Information bias, also called misclassification bias, results from errors in measuring exposures or outcomes, which can be differential or non-differential. Methods to control for biases like blinding subjects and using multiple questions are also outlined.
Randomized controlled trial: Going for the GoldGaurav Kamboj
Dr. Gaurav Kamboj's document discusses the hierarchy of evidence and research designs. It provides background on the history of randomization in research from its first use in 1747 to establish the gold standard of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The document describes the basic design of RCTs and different types of RCT study designs including parallel, crossover, factorial, and cluster designs. It outlines the basic steps to conduct an RCT including developing a protocol, selecting study populations, random allocation of subjects, intervention/manipulation, follow-up, and outcome assessment.
This document provides an overview of systematic literature reviews. It defines systematic reviews as reviews that use explicit and reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research to answer a specific question. The key steps outlined include developing a protocol, formulating a review question using PICO elements, establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria, systematically searching literature sources, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing results, and interpreting findings. Examples are provided for many of the steps like developing search strategies, creating logs to document the process, and tools for summarizing evidence like PRISMA diagrams and data tables.
This document discusses the validity and reliability of analytical tests used for screening and diagnosis. It defines key terms like sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and discusses how changing cutoff levels can impact false positives and negatives. Screening tests are used to separate populations into those with and without a disease, while considering a test's accuracy. Continuous variable tests may require an artificial cutoff versus dichotomous screening tests. The document also examines how prevalence impacts predictive value and how using multiple screening tests can improve accuracy.
The study presents a protocol to evaluate combining school and household interventions to reduce excessive weight gain in students in Brazil. It is a randomized community trial called PAAPPAS that will involve 2500 students from 18 schools. Schools will be randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. The intervention group will receive primary interventions led by trained teachers on healthy lifestyle and secondary interventions for overweight students through monthly home visits. Outcomes will be measured through questionnaires, anthropometric measurements, and assessing food consumption and physical activity to see if the interventions can reduce BMI levels. The study aims to provide evidence on whether integrating school and primary health care can prevent excessive weight gain in adolescents.
This document discusses key concepts in epidemiology including definitions of disease, illness, and sickness. It describes the spectrum and "iceberg phenomenon" of disease, where most cases remain undiagnosed. Theories of disease causation are outlined, from older theories to modern concepts like the epidemiological triad/tetrad involving agents, hosts, and environments over time. Examples of risk factors, risk groups, and models of causation like the web and wheel of causation are provided. The natural history of disease progression is also addressed. Tuberculosis is used as an example to illustrate the interplay between infectious agents, human hosts, and social/environmental determinants of disease.
this presentation takes you through the concept of association observed between variables in a study and how could it become a causative association in step-wise manner.Exemplify using Bradford hill criteria. slides after references are extra slides not covered in the presentation.
Observational descriptive study: case report, case series & ecological studyPrabesh Ghimire
This document discusses different types of research designs, including observational and intervention designs. It focuses on non-intervention designs like case reports, case series, and cross-sectional studies. Case reports describe the occurrence, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of an individual patient, especially unusual cases. Case series describe aspects of a disease or treatment by following a group of patients with common characteristics. Both case reports and case series are useful for generating hypotheses but have limitations due to lack of a control group.
This document provides information on epidemiological study designs, including analytical studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies. It defines epidemiology as the study of health-related states in populations. Case-control studies look backward from the outcome to exposures, comparing cases to controls. Cohort studies follow groups over time to examine exposure-outcome relationships. The key difference is that cohort studies measure incidence while case-control studies measure odds ratios. Selection of appropriate study populations and controls is important to minimize biases.
This document provides an overview of case-control studies, including:
- Case-control studies compare characteristics of people with a disease (cases) to people without the disease (controls) to identify potential risk factors.
- Key components include clearly defining the disease, selecting representative cases and controls, measuring exposures that occurred before disease onset, and accounting for potential confounding factors.
- The odds ratio is used to analyze if cases had higher or lower odds of exposure compared to controls, indicating increased or decreased risk.
- Cohort studies examine the association between an exposure and an outcome by following groups over time and comparing their experience.
- This document discusses what a cohort study is, how it differs from other study designs in determining temporal relationships, and provides examples of cohort designs and their analysis.
- Key aspects reviewed include prospectively following groups based on exposure status and comparing disease incidence rates and relative risks between exposed and unexposed groups over time.
This document summarizes a seminar presentation on case control studies. It begins by defining epidemiological study cycles and analytical study types such as case control and cohort studies. It then focuses on case control studies, defining them, discussing their history, design, outcomes, limitations, advantages and applications. Examples of notable case control studies are provided, such as Lane Claypon's 1926 breast cancer study and studies from the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer. Key aspects of case control study methodology like selection of cases and controls, and matching to control for confounding variables are explained.
Case control studies compare exposures in individuals with a disease (cases) to individuals without the disease (controls) to identify potential risk factors for the disease. The study involves selecting cases and controls, ascertaining their exposure status, analyzing differences in exposure rates using odds ratios, and interpreting results to determine if an exposure is associated with the disease. Key limitations are that it cannot estimate incidence rates or time relationships between exposure and disease.
The document discusses different types of study designs and sampling methods used in experiments and observational studies. It provides examples to identify the specific study design or sampling method used. Key points covered include:
- Observational studies observe subjects without modifying outcomes, while experiments apply treatments to modify outcomes.
- Random assignment of subjects to treatment and control groups allows for control of variables.
- Sampling methods include random, systematic, stratified, cluster, and convenience.
This document discusses research design and data collection for statistical studies. It defines different study types including observational and interventional studies. Key aspects of research design covered include developing research questions, determining the appropriate study design, and selecting appropriate statistical tests. Specific study designs like randomized controlled trials and observational studies are described. The document also addresses topics like variables, sample size calculations, and representing data summaries.
This document summarizes key concepts from the first three sections of Chapter 1 of an introductory statistics textbook. It defines important statistical terms like population, sample, parameter, and statistic. It also distinguishes between descriptive and inferential statistics, and different types of data like categorical, quantitative, discrete, and continuous data. Measurement levels like nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio are explained. Examples are provided to illustrate the concepts.
The document discusses key aspects of experimental design, including the differences between observational studies and experiments, the principles of experimental design (randomization, control, replication), and issues like confounding variables, blocking, and randomized block designs. It provides examples of how to design experiments to test a new migraine drug while controlling for potential influences like age and gender.
Statistical Methods for Removing Selection Bias In Observational StudiesNathan Taback
The slide deck is from a talk I delivered at a Dana Farber / Harvard Cancer Center outcomes seminar. It presents an overview of currently available statistical methods to remove bias in observational studies.
This document discusses different types of epidemiological study designs, including descriptive and experimental designs. Descriptive designs include cross-sectional studies, case reports, case series, and qualitative studies. Cross-sectional studies examine the relationship between diseases and other factors in a population at a single point in time. Case reports and case series describe characteristics of individual patients or small groups. Experimental designs include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which test the effectiveness of interventions by randomly assigning participants to intervention or control groups. Observational studies like case-control and cohort studies examine the relationship between exposures and outcomes without intervention. The document outlines advantages and disadvantages of each design.
The document discusses guidelines for reporting observational studies. It introduces the IMRAD structure for research papers and the STROBE statement, which provides a 22-item checklist for reporting observational studies in epidemiology. The IMRAD structure includes separate sections for introduction, methods, results, and discussion, while the STROBE statement checklist specifies what information should be included in titles, abstracts, introductions, methods, results, and discussions to properly report observational studies. Adhering to these guidelines helps ensure observational studies are reported clearly, transparently, and can be properly evaluated.
This document outlines the steps in conducting a cohort study. It defines a cohort as a group of people who share a common characteristic or experience within a defined time period. The key elements of a cohort study discussed are: selection of study subjects, obtaining data on exposure levels, selection of comparison groups, follow up of participants, and analysis of disease outcomes between exposed and unexposed groups to determine the strength of any association. Regular follow up is needed to collect data on disease outcomes.
Engage and Retain Patients in Long-term Observational StudiesJohn Reites
Traditionally, real-world and late phase studies require sites to enroll, engage and retain patients and collect and record patient reported outcomes (PRO), which can be burdensome to both sites and patients. Overtime, sites and patients may lose motivation to participate, contributing to high patient dropout rates, increased study costs and site dissatisfaction. This session will focus on innovative approaches for effectively engaging and retaining patients in long-term studies, such as: identifying design and operational considerations with conducting long-term observational research, understanding site and patient retention challenges, and examining engagement strategies and opportunities for improving retention and compliance.
Research Methodology - Case control studyRizwan S A
This document discusses case control studies, an observational study design that compares individuals with a disease or condition (cases) to individuals without the disease or condition (controls) to determine associations between exposures and disease outcomes. It provides an overview of key elements of case control studies, including the selection and matching of cases and controls, measurement of exposure, analysis using odds ratios, potential biases, advantages and disadvantages compared to cohort studies, and examples of case control studies conducted.
This document discusses different study designs used in medical research, including observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Observational studies include cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Cohort studies follow groups over time to assess outcomes. Case-control studies compare groups with/without an outcome. Cross-sectional studies measure outcomes at one time point. Randomized controlled trials randomly assign participants to intervention/control groups to minimize bias when assessing cause-and-effect relationships. Key aspects of randomized trials discussed include equipoise, randomization, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, and different trial designs.
This document discusses different types of research studies, including observational studies like case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies as well as experimental studies like clinical trials. It provides details on key aspects of each type of study such as whether they are retrospective or prospective, if they measure incidence or prevalence of disease, and the analyses used like odds ratios, relative risk, and chi-square. Case-control studies compare groups with and without a disease and look back in time to find exposures, cohort studies follow groups over time to see who develops a disease, and cross-sectional studies measure disease prevalence at a single point in time.
The document defines key epidemiological measures used to describe disease occurrence and impact, including prevalence, incidence, rates, and ratios. It provides examples of how to calculate and interpret these measures. The document concludes that prevalence describes the current disease burden, while incidence provides information on the risk of developing disease over time and is thus better suited for etiological studies.
This is the handout version of a lecture I give to medical residents and fellows on the basics of clinical research designs and the inherent issues that go along with each one. I give this lecture as part of a multi-module lecture series on research design and statistical analysis.
The document provides details about a presentation on case control studies. It begins with an introduction and definitions of epidemiology and study designs. It then describes the key aspects of case control studies, including:
- The basic design which involves selecting cases with the disease and controls without the disease, and obtaining data on past exposure to compare between the two groups.
- The four main steps of selection of cases and controls, matching, measurement of exposure, and analysis and interpretation.
- Important considerations around the selection of cases and controls such as definition of cases, sources of bias, and methods of matching to minimize confounding.
This document provides an overview of case-control study designs in epidemiology. It defines a case-control study as one that selects participants based on disease status, including cases who have the disease and controls who do not. Exposure is then assessed retrospectively. Key strengths are efficiency and ability to study rare diseases, while weaknesses include vulnerability to selection bias and inability to directly estimate incidence. Measures of association from case-control data estimate incidence odds ratios when cases are incident. Recall bias can also influence odds ratio estimates if differential between cases and controls.
This document provides an overview of analytical epidemiology studies, specifically case-control studies and cohort studies. It defines the key aspects of each study type, including:
- Case-control studies are retrospective and compare exposures in cases (people with the disease/outcome) to controls (people without the disease). Basic steps include selection of cases and controls, measuring exposure, and analysis to determine odds ratios. Sources of bias include selection, information, and confounding biases.
- Cohort studies are prospective and follow groups over time to determine disease incidence. Groups are identified based on exposure status. Basic steps involve selection of study subjects, obtaining exposure data, follow-up, and analysis of relative risks. Sources of bias include
Observational study is divided into descriptive and analytical studies.
Non-experimental
Observational because there is no individual intervention
Treatment and exposures occur in a “non-controlled” environment
Individuals can be observed prospectively or retrospectively
COHORT STUDY- an “observational” design comparing individuals with a known risk factor or exposure with others without the risk factor or exposure.
looking for a difference in the risk (incidence) of a disease over time.
best observational design
data usually collected prospectively (some retrospective)
CASE CONTROL - EFFECT TO CAUSE
Retrospective
When disease is rare
.
Analytical case-control studies compare exposures in groups with and without a disease. Cases are selected who have the disease, and controls without the disease are matched on characteristics like age and sex. Investigators collect exposure data and calculate odds ratios to evaluate associations between exposures and diseases. Case-control studies are useful for rare diseases and outbreak investigations but are susceptible to biases from non-representative sampling and inaccurate recall of past exposures.
Analytical case-control studies compare exposures in groups with and without a disease. Cases are selected who have the disease, and controls without the disease are matched on characteristics like age and sex. Investigators measure past exposures and compare frequencies between cases and controls. The odds ratio association measure compares the odds of exposure in cases versus controls. Selection bias can occur if cases or controls are not representative, and recall bias can occur if cases remember past exposures differently than controls.
Cohort studies observe groups of people (cohorts) over time to determine the effects of exposures. They are prospective in nature. Key features include identifying cohorts prior to disease appearance and observing them over time to measure disease frequency. Cohort studies are useful when there is evidence of an exposure-disease association, exposures are rare but diseases common among exposed groups, and follow-up is possible. They involve selecting cohorts, obtaining exposure data, choosing comparison groups, follow-up, and analysis of incidence rates and risk estimates.
This document provides an overview of different study designs used in clinical research. It describes descriptive studies like case reports, case series, and cross-sectional studies which aim to describe characteristics of populations. Analytical studies like case-control and cohort studies assess associations between exposures and outcomes. Experimental studies like randomized clinical trials allocate exposures to subjects. Biases like selection bias, information bias, and confounding are discussed. An example of a cross-sectional study design assessing hypertension prevalence is provided.
Cohort studies with example of classical cohort studiesshefali jain
This document provides an overview of cohort studies, including:
- Cohort studies involve observing groups of people (cohorts) who are defined by a common characteristic or exposure over time to determine outcomes.
- The key features are identifying cohorts prior to disease appearance and observing them over time to measure disease frequency.
- Examples include the Framingham Heart Study on cardiovascular risk factors and Doll and Hill's British doctor study on smoking and lung cancer.
- Cohort studies can measure incidence, relative risks, and dose-response relationships but require large sample sizes and long durations.
This document discusses different types of study designs used in epidemiology. It begins by defining epidemiology and then outlines the objectives of the presentation which are to understand study design concepts, appropriately apply designs to research, and learn about advantages and disadvantages. Descriptive and analytical studies are introduced. Descriptive studies describe disease frequency and distribution without hypotheses, while analytical studies compare at least two groups to test hypotheses. Case-control and cohort studies are presented as common analytical designs. Case-control studies compare exposed vs unexposed groups among cases and controls to calculate odds ratios. Potential biases are discussed.
COMMON BIASES IN PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH.pdfsamthamby79
Major biases in pharmacoepidemiological research include selection bias, information bias, and confounding. Selection bias can occur through referral bias, self-selection bias, prevalence study bias, and protopathic bias. Information bias includes non-differential and differential misclassification. Differential misclassification involves recall bias and detection bias. Confounding involves covariates related to disease development that may incorrectly attribute an effect to drug exposure. Accurately defining exposure timing and avoiding these biases is important for valid pharmacoepidemiological research.
Cohort, case control & survival studies-2014Ramnath Takiar
The presentation discusses about Cohort, Case-control and Survival studies. The concept of Cohort and Case-control studies is explained with the help of diagrams as perceived by me. Some discussion is also there about survival and relative survival. Appropriate data is also provided to explain about survival and relative survival.
6..Study designs in descritive epidemiology DR.SOMANATH.pptDentalYoutube
This document provides an overview of various epidemiological study designs used in public health research. It begins with descriptive studies, which observe disease distribution by time, place and person without attempting to draw conclusions about causes. It then covers analytical studies, including ecological, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies. Ecological studies examine population-level associations, while cross-sectional studies measure prevalence. Case-control studies test hypotheses by comparing exposures in cases vs controls, and cohort studies prospectively follow groups to measure disease incidence and relative risks. The document discusses key aspects of study design, biases, strengths and limitations for each type.
This document describes the key features and types of cohort studies. Cohort studies identify a group of individuals and follow them over time to determine outcomes. Prospective cohort studies follow individuals from the present into the future, while retrospective cohort studies look back in time. Cohort studies allow calculation of incidence rates and relative risks to study relationships between exposures and diseases.
This document discusses cohort studies, which are observational analytical studies that follow groups over time to study the relationship between suspected causes and diseases. It defines cohorts as groups that share a common characteristic or experience. Cohort studies identify groups before disease appearance and observe them to determine disease frequency among exposed and unexposed groups. They can provide direct estimates of relative risk and study multiple outcomes. However, they require large samples, long follow-up periods, and are prone to loss of subjects over time. Examples provided include studies of smoking and lung cancer and the Framingham Heart Study.
Cross-sectional studies examine the relationship between a disease and exposure in a population at a single point in time. They provide a snapshot of disease prevalence and exposure prevalence simultaneously. While they can describe disease burden and identify potential risk factors, the temporal relationship between exposure and disease is unclear since they involve simultaneous rather than longitudinal measurement.
This document outlines key concepts in pharmacoepidemiology study designs. It discusses the scientific method and different types of epidemiologic study designs including descriptive studies, analytical studies, case reports, case series, ecological studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies. It emphasizes that randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence while case reports and ecological studies provide the weakest evidence.
1. Pharmacoepidemiology studies aim to answer relevant questions about drug effects, side effects, and value that arise following drug registration and widespread use.
2. Observational study designs like cohort studies and case-control studies are often used in pharmacoepidemiology as they allow investigation of exposures and outcomes that would be unethical or impractical to study experimentally.
3. Both study design and analysis must account for potential biases like selection bias and information bias to obtain valid results.
Bias, confounding and causality in p'coepidemiological researchsamthamby79
A brief description of three issues (Bias, Confounding and Causality) commonly encountered while performing pharmacoepidemiological research. A big THANK YOU to Mr. Strom and Mr. Kimmel.
Similar to SAMS EBM Online Course: Observational Study Designs (20)
Kosmoderma Academy, a leading institution in the field of dermatology and aesthetics, offers comprehensive courses in cosmetology and trichology. Our specialized courses on PRP (Hair), DR+Growth Factor, GFC, and Qr678 are designed to equip practitioners with advanced skills and knowledge to excel in hair restoration and growth treatments.
Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptxAyeshaZaid1
Dive into an in-depth exploration of the histological structure of female reproductive system with this comprehensive lecture. Presented by Dr. Ayesha Irfan, Assistant Professor of Anatomy, this presentation covers the Gross anatomy and functional histology of the female reproductive organs. Ideal for students, educators, and anyone interested in medical science, this lecture provides clear explanations, detailed diagrams, and valuable insights into female reproductive system. Enhance your knowledge and understanding of this essential aspect of human biology.
DECLARATION OF HELSINKI - History and principlesanaghabharat01
This SlideShare presentation provides a comprehensive overview of the Declaration of Helsinki, a foundational document outlining ethical guidelines for conducting medical research involving human subjects.
Osteoporosis - Definition , Evaluation and Management .pdfJim Jacob Roy
Osteoporosis is an increasing cause of morbidity among the elderly.
In this document , a brief outline of osteoporosis is given , including the risk factors of osteoporosis fractures , the indications for testing bone mineral density and the management of osteoporosis
8 Surprising Reasons To Meditate 40 Minutes A Day That Can Change Your Life.pptxHolistified Wellness
We’re talking about Vedic Meditation, a form of meditation that has been around for at least 5,000 years. Back then, the people who lived in the Indus Valley, now known as India and Pakistan, practised meditation as a fundamental part of daily life. This knowledge that has given us yoga and Ayurveda, was known as Veda, hence the name Vedic. And though there are some written records, the practice has been passed down verbally from generation to generation.
5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT or Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that serves a range of roles in the human body. It is sometimes referred to as the happy chemical since it promotes overall well-being and happiness.
It is mostly found in the brain, intestines, and blood platelets.
5-HT is utilised to transport messages between nerve cells, is known to be involved in smooth muscle contraction, and adds to overall well-being and pleasure, among other benefits. 5-HT regulates the body's sleep-wake cycles and internal clock by acting as a precursor to melatonin.
It is hypothesised to regulate hunger, emotions, motor, cognitive, and autonomic processes.
Travel vaccination in Manchester offers comprehensive immunization services for individuals planning international trips. Expert healthcare providers administer vaccines tailored to your destination, ensuring you stay protected against various diseases. Conveniently located clinics and flexible appointment options make it easy to get the necessary shots before your journey. Stay healthy and travel with confidence by getting vaccinated in Manchester. Visit us: www.nxhealthcare.co.uk
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptxTina Purnat
• Pitfalls and pivots needed to use AI effectively in public health
• Evidence-based strategies to address health misinformation effectively
• Building trust with communities online and offline
• Equipping health professionals to address questions, concerns and health misinformation
• Assessing risk and mitigating harm from adverse health narratives in communities, health workforce and health system
SAMS EBM Online Course: Observational Study Designs
1. Observational Study Designs
Ahmad Al-Moujahed, M.D.
Ph.D. Student at Boston University School of Medicine and Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School
2015 Evidence Based Medicine Course
May 2, 2015
2. Outline
Introduction about some terminology.
Cohort studies: design, population and control selection,
potential biases, and examples.
Cases-control studies: design, cases and controls selection,
potential biases, issues with controls, and examples.
Cohort-nested studies.
Cross-sectional studies.
7. Bias and Confounding
Bias: systematic errors in any type of epidemiological or clinical study that result in an incorrect
estimate of the association between exposures and outcomes.
Confounding: a distortion (inaccuracy) in the estimated measure of association that occurs
when the primary exposure of interest is mixed up with some other factor that is associated
with the outcome.
8. Characteristics of Confounding
There are 3 conditions that must be present for
confounding to occur:
1. The confounding factor must be associated with both
the risk factor of interest and the outcome.
2. The confounding factor must be distributed unequally
among the groups being compared.
3. A confounder cannot be an intermediary step in the
causal pathway from the exposure of interest to the
outcome of interest.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
10. Is the Association Causal?
If we observe an association between an exposure and a disease or another outcome,
the question is: Is the association causal?
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
11. Overview of clinical and epidemiological study designs
Descriptive
Populations
Individuals
• Case report
• Case series
Analytic studies
Observational
• Cross-sectional studies
• Case control
• Cohort
- Retrospective
- Prospective
Interventional/Experimental
• Randomized controlled trial
• Clinical trial
• Field trials
12. Cohort Studies
Cohort: a group of similar people followed through time together.
A cohort study follows participants through time to calculate the rate at which new (incident)
disease occurs and to identify risk factors for the disease.
13. Closed (Fixed) vs. Open Cohorts
A closed cohort is one with fixed membership. Example: Japanese atomic bomb survivors
An open cohort is dynamic; members can leave or be added over time. Example: state
cancer registry.
Most cohort studies are conducted in closed (or fixed) cohorts.
14. Design of a Cohort Study
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
15. Design of a Cohort Study
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
Risk Ration (RR): tells you how many times higher or lower the disease risk is among the
exposed as compared to the unexposed. Is commonly used in etiologic research.
Risk Difference (RD): tell the absolute effect of exposure on disease occurrence.
16. General population cohort (defined population).
Special exposure cohort (exposed vs. non-exposed)
Selection of a Cohort Study Population
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
17. General population cohort (defined population)
Selection of a Cohort Study Population
Select a defined population before any of its members
become exposed or before their exposures are
identified.
For common risk factors, (e.g., smoking, obesity).
Examples:
• The general population (e.g., the Framingham Heart
Study).
• A particular subset of the general population (e.g.,
Nurses’ Health study and British Doctors Health
Study)
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
18. Select groups for inclusion in the study on the
basis of whether or not they were exposed
(e.g., occupationally exposed cohorts).
For uncommon risks (e.g., occupational risks).
Examples
• Soldiers exposed to dioxin (agent orange) in
Vietnam.
• Survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
Special exposure cohort (exposed vs. non-exposed)
Selection of a Cohort Study Population
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
19. By geographical region.
• Framingham heart study
By occupational group
• Nurses health study
• British Doctor’s health study
By disease
• Multi-center AIDS Cohort (MACS)
By risk groups
• IV Drug Users cohort (ALIVE Study in Baltimore - AIDS Linked to the Intravenous
Experience)
By exposure event
• Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors
Selection of a Cohort Study Population
20. Selection of a Cohort Study Population
Converting a cross-sectional survey into a cohort design
Pai M, Gokhale K, Joshi R, et al. JAMA. 2005;293(22):2746-2755. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2006 174(3), 349–355
21. The Comparison (Control) Group in Cohort
Studies
Two essential things in selecting the comparison group in a cohort study:
The unexposed (or less exposed) comparison group should be as similar as possible with
respect to other factors that could influence the outcome being studied (possible confounding
factors).
Information collection should be as accurate & as comparable as possible in all groups in
order to avoid biasing the association.
22. General Types of Comparison Groups for Cohort
Studies
1. An internal comparison group: generally the best.
2. An external comparison cohort: to study occupational exposures.
3. The general population
23. Types of Cohort Studies
Prospective cohort study.
Retrospective cohort study.
Ambidirectional study.
Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45
27. Potential Biases in Cohort Studies
Bias in assessment of the outcome.
Information bias.
Biases from nonresponse and losses to follow-up.
Analytic bias.
28. Advantages of Cohort Studies
1.More clearly indicate the temporal sequence between exposure and outcome.
2. allow calculating the incidence of disease in each group, so we can calculate:
• Absolute risk (incidence)
• Relative risk (risk ratio or rate ratio)
• Risk difference
• Attributable proportion (attributable risk %)
3. particularly useful for evaluating the effects of rare or unusual exposures,
4. A cohort study also enables examination of multiple outcomes of a single risk factor.
5. Cohort studies, especially prospective cohort studies, reduce the possibility that the results will
be biased.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
29. Disadvantages of Prospective Cohort
Studies
1. May have to follow large numbers of
subjects for a long time.
2. Can be very expensive and time
consuming.
3. Not good for diseases with a long
latency.
Disadvantages of Cohort Studies
Disadvantages of Retrospective Cohort
Studies
1. If one uses records that were not designed
for the study, the available data may be of
poor quality.
2. There is frequently an absence of data on
potential confounding factors if the data was
recorded in the past.
3. It may be difficult to identify an appropriate
exposed cohort and an appropriate
comparison group.
4. Not good for rare diseases.
5. Differential loss to follow up can introduce bias.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
30. The Framingham Study
Began in 1948.
Residents were considered eligible if they were
between 30 and 62 years of age.
The cohort consisted of 5,127 men and
women were free of cardiovascular disease at
the time of study entry.
Many “exposures” were defined, including
smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure,
elevated cholesterol levels, low levels of
physical activity, and other factors.
www.framinghamheartstudy.org
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
31. The incidence of CHD increases with age. It occurs earlier and more frequently in males.
Persons with hypertension develop CHD at a greater rate than those who are normotensive.
Elevated blood cholesterol level is associated with an increased risk of CHD.
Tobacco smoking and habitual use of alcohol are associated with an increased incidence of
CHD.
Increased physical activity is associated with a decrease in the development of CHD.
An increase in body weight predisposes a person to the development of CHD.
An increased rate of development of CHD occurs in patients with diabetes mellitus.
www.framinghamheartstudy.org
The Framingham Study: the Tested Hypotheses
32. 1960 Cigarette smoking found to increase the risk of heart disease
1961 Cholesterol level, blood pressure, and electrocardiogram abnormalities found to increase the risk of heart disease
1967 Physical activity found to reduce the risk of heart disease and obesity to increase the risk of heart disease
1970 High blood pressure found to increase the risk of stroke
1970 Atrial fibrillation increases stroke risk 5-fold
1976 Menopause found to increase the risk of heart disease
1978 Psychosocial factors found to affect heart disease
1988 High levels of HDL cholesterol found to reduce risk of death
1994 Enlarged left ventricle (one of two lower chambers of the heart) shown to increase the risk of stroke
1996 Progression from hypertension to heart failure described
1998 Framingham Heart Study researchers identify that atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of all-cause
mortality.
1998 Development of simple coronary disease prediction algorithm involving risk factor categories to allow physicians to predict
multivariate coronary heart disease risk in patients without overt CHD
1999 Lifetime risk at age 40 years of developing coronary heart disease is one in two for men and one in three for women
The Framingham Study: Research Milestones
www.framinghamheartstudy.org
34. Nurses’ Health Study
Began in1976.
Cohort: married registered nurses who were
aged 30 to 55 in 1976, who lived in the 11 most
populous states.
Approximately 122,000 nurses out of the
170,000 mailed responded.
www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/
Original goal was to evaluate risks of oral
contraceptives.
Has become one of the principal sources of observational
data on diet and chronic diseases.
Questionnaires are periodically mailed out to thousands of
nurses.
37. Incidence of Breast Cancer and Progesterone Deficiency
Research Question:
Is the relationship between late age at first pregnancy and increased risk of breast
cancer related to the finding that early first pregnancy protects against breast cancer (and
therefore such protection is missing in women who have a later pregnancy or no
pregnancy), or are both a delayed first pregnancy and an increased risk of breast cancer
the result of some third factor, such as an underlying hormonal abnormality?
Am J Epidemiol 114:209–217, 1981
38. Design of Cowan's retrospective cohort study of breast cancer.
(Data from Cowan LD, Gordis L, Tonascia JA, et al: Breast cancer incidence in women with progesterone deficiency. Am J Epidemiol 114:209–217, 1981.)
Incidence of Breast Cancer and Progesterone Deficiency
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
39. Cohort Studies for Investigating Childhood Health and Disease
Examples
Follow-up studies of fetuses exposed to radiation from atomic bombs in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki during World War II.
The Collaborative Perinatal Study, begun in the United States in the 1950s, was a multicenter
cohort study that followed more than 58,000 children from birth to age 7 years.
1. At what point should the individuals in the cohort first be identified?
2. Should the cohort be drawn from one center or from a few centers, or should it be
a national sample drawn in an attempt to make the cohort representative of a
national population? Will the findings of studies based on the cohort be broadly
generalizable only if the cohort is drawn from a national sample?
3. For how long should a cohort be followed?
4.What hypotheses and how many hypotheses should be tested in the cohort that
will be established?
Challenging questions:
40. Points to Look For While Reading Cohort Studies
1. Who is at risk? (Selection)
2. Who is exposed? (Selection)
3. Who is an appropriate control? (Control)
4. Have outcomes been assessed equally? (Outcome)
Grimes et al. Lancet 2002;359:341-45
41. Hypothetical Scenario
Note the following aspects:
1. The disease is rare.
2. There is a fairly large number of
exposed individuals in the state, but
most of these are not diseased.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
42. RR = Relative Risk (Risk Ratio) = (700/1,000,000) / (600/5,000,000) = 5.83
"The purpose of the control group is to determine the relative size of the exposed and unexposed components of the source population."
OR = Odds Ratio = (700/1,000) / (600/5,000) = 5.83
Hypothetical Scenario
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
43. Clinical Scenarios
Suppose you are a clinician and you have seen a few patients with a certain type of
cancer, almost all of whom report that they have been exposed to a particular
chemical. You hypothesize that the exposure is related to the risk of developing this
type of cancer. How would you go about confirming or refuting your hypothesis?
In the 1940s, Sir Norman Gregg, an Australian ophthalmologist, observed a number of
infants and young children in his ophthalmology practice who presented with an unusual
form of cataract. Gregg noted that these children had been in utero during the time of
a rubella outbreak. He suggested that there was an association between prenatal rubella
exposure and the development of the unusual cataracts.
In the early 1940s, Alton Ochsner, a surgeon in New Orleans, observed that virtually all of the
patients on whom he was operating for lung cancer gave a history of cigarette smoking.
He hypothesized that cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer.
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
44. Case-Control Studies
Individual participants in a case-control study are selected for inclusion in the study based on
their disease status.
• Cases = participants with the disease of interest.
• Controls = participants without the disease.
Both cases and controls are asked the same set of questions about past exposures.
A case definition should specify exactly what characteristics must be present or absent for a
person to be deemed a case.
45. Design of a Case-control Study
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
46. Design of a Case-control Study
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
48. Doll R, Hill AB: A study of the aetiology of carcinoma of the lung. BMJ 2:1271–1286, 1952
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
Design of a Case-control Study
49. Selection of Cases in Case-Control Studies
A key initial step is identifying an appropriate and accessible source of individuals with the
disease of interest:
Hospitals.
Specialty clinics.
Public health agencies.
Disease registries.
Death certificates.
Cross-sectional surveys.
Disease support groups.
Incident or Prevalent Cases?
Prevalent cases: more practical. However, identified risk factors using prevalent cases may be
related more to survival with the disease than to the development of the disease (incidence).
Incident cases: preferable in case-control studies of disease etiology.
50. Let’s Think About This!
Does tuberculosis protect against cancer?
Pearl concluded that tuberculosis had an antagonistic or protective effect against cancer.
How could Pearl have overcome this problem in his study?
A fundamental conceptual issue: should the controls be similar to the cases in all
respects other than having the disease in question, or should they be representative of all
persons without the disease in the population from which the cases are selected?
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
51. Selection of Controls in Case-control Studies
1. The comparison group ("controls") should be
representative of the source population that produced
the cases.
2. The "controls" must be sampled in a way that is
independent of the exposure, meaning that their selection
should not be more (or less) likely if they have the
exposure of interest.
3. Controls must be reasonably similar to cases except for
their disease status
4. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for cases that do not
specifically relate to the disease should also apply to
controls.
- For example, if cases must be males between 25 and 39
years of age, controls must also be men in this age group.
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
52. OR = (700/1,500) / (600/4,500) = 3.50
Selection Bias in Case-control Studies
OR = Odds Ratio = (700/1,000) / (600/5,000) = 5.83
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
53. Nonhospitalized persons as controls:
• Probability sample of the total population
• School lists
• Insurance company lists
• Selective service lists
• Neighborhood controls
• Best friend control.
Sources of Controls in Case-control Studies
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
54. Hospitalized Patients as controls:
• Easier to identify
• More likely to participate than general population controls.
• Minimize selection bias because they generally come from the same source population
(provided referral patterns are similar).
• Recall bias would be minimized, because they are sick, but with a different diagnosis.
• More economical.
Sources of Controls in Case-control Studies
If cases are obtained from a medical facility, the comparison groups should be obtained from
the same facility, provided they meet two criteria:
1 They have diseases that are unrelated to the exposure being studied.
2 Control patients in the comparison should have diseases with similar referral patterns as
the cases, in order to minimize selection bias.
55. Considerations:
Hospital patients differ from people in the community.
A disease group is unlikely to be representative of the general reference population.
Should we use a sample of all other patients admitted to the hospital (other than those with
the cases-diagnosis) or should we select a specific “other diagnosis” ?
Hospitalized Patients as Controls
Example: case-control study of lung cancer and smoking.
• Do we exclude from our control group those persons who have other smoking-related diagnoses,
such as coronary heart disease, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, and emphysema?
• One alternative may be “subgroup analysis”
59. Did patients with cancer of the pancreas drink more coffee than did people without cancer of the
pancreas in the same population?
Problems In Control Selection
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
61. Use of Multiple Controls in Case-control Studies
Multiple controls of the same type: to increase the power of the study.
Multiple controls of different types: in case we are concerned that the exposure of the
hospital controls used in our study may not represent the rate of exposure that is “expected” in
a population of nondiseased persons.
63. Study groups in Gold's study of brain tumors in children.
Multiple Controls of Different Types
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
64. Did mothers of children with brain tumors have more prenatal radiation exposure than control mothers?
• The carcinogen effect of prenatal radiation is
NOT site specific.
• Recall bias?
• The carcinogen effect of prenatal radiation is specific
for the brain.
• Recall bias is unlikely to be the explanation.
Multiple Controls of Different Types
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
65. Matching in Case-Control Studies
Three basic options for matching cases and controls:
No matching.
Group (frequency) matching: the proportion of controls with a certain characteristic is
identical to the proportion of cases with the same characteristic.
Individual (matched-pairs) matching: each case selected for the study, a control is selected
who is similar to the case in terms of the specific variable or variables of concern.
Individual matching often used in case-control studies that use hospital controls and in
genetic studies.
Matching: the process of selecting the controls so that they are similar to the cases in
certain characteristics, such as age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, and occupation.
66. Problems with Matching
Practical Problems.
Conceptual Problems: once we have matched controls to cases according to a given
characteristic, we cannot study that characteristic.
We do not want to match on any variable that we may wish to explore in our study.
Overmatching: matching on variables other than the variables that are risk factors for
the disease (which we are not interested in investigating in the current study)
67. Problems with Recall
Limitations in Recall: If it affects all subjects in a study to the same extent, regardless of
whether they are cases or controls, a misclassification of exposure status may result;
generally leads to an underestimate of the true risk of the disease associated with the
exposure.
Recall Bias: occurs when cases and controls systematically have different memories of
the past
68. When is a Case-Control Study Desirable?
When the disease or outcome being studied is rare.
When the disease or outcome has a long induction and latent period
When exposure data is difficult or expensive to obtain.
When the study population is dynamic.
When little is known about the risk factors for the disease.
Less time-consuming and much less costly than prospective cohort studies.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
69. Advantages and Disadvantages of Case-
Control Studies
Advantages:
Efficient for rare diseases or diseases with
a long latency period.
Less costly and less time-consuming.
Advantageous when exposure data is
expensive or hard to obtain.
Advantageous when studying dynamic
populations in which follow-up is difficult.
Disadvantages:
Subject to selection bias.
Inefficient for rare exposures.
Information on exposure is subject to
observation bias.
They generally do not allow calculation
of incidence (absolute risk).
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/
70. Case-Control Studies Based in a Defined Cohort
Design of a case-control study initiated within a cohort.
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
Nested Case-Control Study.
Case-Cohort Study.
Case-Crossover Design.
73. Controls are a sample of individuals who
are at risk for the disease at the time each
case of the disease develops.
Cases and controls are matched on
calendar time and length of follow-up.
Nested Case-Control Studies
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
74. Design of a hypothetical case-cohort study
Cases develop at the same times that were
seen in the nested case-control design, but
the controls are randomly chosen from
the defined cohort with which the study
began (subcohort).
Cases and controls are not matched on
calendar time and length of follow-up.
Possible to study different diseases
(different sets of cases) in the same case-
cohort study using the same cohort for
controls.
Case-Cohort Studies
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
75. Advantages of Embedding a Case-Control Study in a Defined Cohort
1.No recall bias.
2.Can establish a temporal relationship.
3. More economical to conduct.
4. Greater comparability between cases and controls.
77. At-risk periods: red brackets.
Control periods: blue brackets.
Each person who is a case serves as his
own control
More economical to conduct
Recall bias?
Case-Crossover Design
Gordis, Epidemiology, 2013
80. Limitations of Cross-Sectional Studies
Identify prevalent cases rather than incident (new) cases;
the association may be with survival after the disease rather
than with the risk of developing the disease.
Often not possible to establish a temporal relationship
between the exposure and the onset of disease
81. Ecological studies
Example: Is the rate of asthma higher in cities with higher levels of air pollution?
Explore correlations between aggregate (group level) exposure and outcomes.
Unit of analysis: not individuals, but clusters (e.g., countries, schools).
Correlation between dietary fat intake and breast cancer by country.
(From Prentice RL, Kakar F, Hursting S, et al: Aspects of the rationale for the Women's Health Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 80:802–814, 1988.)
82. The authors themselves wrote: “The observed association is between pregnancy during
an influenza epidemic and subsequent leukemia in the offspring of that pregnancy. It is
not known if the mothers of any of these children actually had influenza during their
pregnancy.”
we are missing individual data on exposure
Ecological studies
83. EBM Levels of Evidence
http://researchguides.dml.georgetown.edu/ebmclinicalquestions
84. Types of Clinical Questions and Types of
Studies to Answer them
Supporting Clinical Care: An Institute in Evidence-Based Practice for Medical Librarians Dartmouth College