Abstract
We discuss a hybrid epidemiologic design that aims to combine two approaches to studying exposure-disease associations. The analytic approach is based on comparisons between individuals, e.g., case-control and cohort studies, and the ecologic approach is based on comparisons between groups. The analytic approach generally provides a stronger basis for inference, in part because of freedom from between-group confounding and better quality data, but the ecologic approach is less susceptible to attenuation bias from measurement error and may provide greater variability in exposure. The design we propose entails selection of a number of groups and enrollment of individuals within each group. Exposures, outcomes, confounders, and modifiers would be assessed on each individual; but additional exposure data might be available on the groups. The analysis would then combine the individual-level and the group-level comparisons, with appropriate adjustments for exposure measurement errors, and would test for compatibility between the two levels of analysis, e.g., to determine whether the associations at the individual level can account for the differences in disease rates between groups. Trade-offs between numbers of groups, numbers of individuals, and the extent of the individual and group measurement protocols are discussed in terms of design efficiency. These issues are illustrated in the context of an on-going study of the health effects of air pollution in southern California, in which 12 communities with different levels and types of pollution have been selected and 3500 school children are being enrolled in a ten-year cohort study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Armstrong B. G. The effects of measurement errors on relative risk regressions. Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Dec;132(6):1176–1184. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenland S. Statistical uncertainty due to misclassification: implications for validation substudies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(12):1167–1174. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90020-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenland S. The effect of misclassification in the presence of covariates. Am J Epidemiol. 1980 Oct;112(4):564–569. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prentice R. L., Sheppard L. Dietary fat and cancer: consistency of the epidemiologic data, and disease prevention that may follow from a practical reduction in fat consumption. Cancer Causes Control. 1990 Jul;1(1):81–109. doi: 10.1007/BF00053187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rosner B., Willett W. C. Interval estimates for correlation coefficients corrected for within-person variation: implications for study design and hypothesis testing. Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Feb;127(2):377–386. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spiegelman D., Gray R. Cost-efficient study designs for binary response data with Gaussian covariate measurement error. Biometrics. 1991 Sep;47(3):851–869. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thomas D., Stram D., Dwyer J. Exposure measurement error: influence on exposure-disease. Relationships and methods of correction. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:69–93. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.000441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Willett W. An overview of issues related to the correction of non-differential exposure measurement error in epidemiologic studies. Stat Med. 1989 Sep;8(9):1031–1073. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]