Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2001 Mar;55(3):198–203. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.3.198

Level of aggregation for optimal epidemiological analysis: the case of time to surgery and unnecessary removal of the normal appendix

S Wen 1, K Demissie 1, D August 1, G Rhoads 1
PMCID: PMC1731839  PMID: 11160175

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE—To illustrate the concept of "individualised fallacy", the result of improper interpretation and inference about aggregate level associations on the basis of associations at the individual level, in epidemiology.
DESIGN—Cohort study.
SETTING—Canadian province of Ontario.
PATIENTS—All patients who underwent primary appendicectomy in 175 Ontario hospitals from 1989 to 1992. The association between rate of normal appendix removal and time to surgery was analysed at two levels: (1) at individual patient level, in which, for each patient, the exact number of days to surgery was derived, and (2) at hospital level, in which hospital specific proportions of time to surgery was calculated.
MAIN RESULTS—Measured at individual level, compared with patients who had an operation on the same day of admission, the odds ratio was 2.41 (95% confidence intervals 2.28, 2.56) for patients who had an operation > 1 day after admission. Measured at hospital level, each 10% increase in the proportion of patients who had an operation > 1 day after admission resulted in a 15% reduction in the odds of normal appendix removal (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence intervals 0.82, 0.88)
CONCLUSIONS—In this case study, hospital level measure correctly predicted a reduction in the rate of normal appendix removal by delaying surgery, whereas individual level measure biased the direction of the relation to the opposite. This example illustrates that bias in across level inference can occur either at individual or ecological level. The preferred level of analysis is the one that minimises confounding; often, it must be selected on the basis of a priori knowledge of the subject area.


Keywords: epidemiological method; ecological fallacy; individualised fallacy

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (129.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adams I. D., Chan M., Clifford P. C., Cooke W. M., Dallos V., de Dombal F. T., Edwards M. H., Hancock D. M., Hewett D. J., McIntyre N. Computer aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain: a multicentre study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Sep 27;293(6550):800–804. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6550.800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson R., Hugander A., Thulin A., Nyström P. O., Olaison G. Indications for operation in suspected appendicitis and incidence of perforation. BMJ. 1994 Jan 8;308(6921):107–110. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6921.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charlson M. E., Pompei P., Ales K. L., MacKenzie C. R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen E., Naylor C. D. Variation in hospital length of stay for acute myocardial infarction in Ontario, Canada. Med Care. 1994 May;32(5):420–435. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199405000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Deyo R. A., Cherkin D. C., Ciol M. A. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613–619. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Entwisle B., Hermalin A. I., Kamnuansilpa P., Chamratrithirong A. A multilevel model of family planning availability and contraceptive use in rural Thailand. Demography. 1984 Nov;21(4):559–574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Entwisle B., Mason W. M., Hermalin A. I. The multilevel dependence of contraceptive use on socioeconomic development and family planning program strength. Demography. 1986 May;23(2):199–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenland S., Morgenstern H. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Mar;18(1):269–274. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.1.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Greenland S., Robins J. Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Apr 15;139(8):747–760. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Koopman J. S., Longini I. M., Jr The ecological effects of individual exposures and nonlinear disease dynamics in populations. Am J Public Health. 1994 May;84(5):836–842. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.5.836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Luckmann R. Incidence and case fatality rates for acute appendicitis in California. A population-based study of the effects of age. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 May;129(5):905–918. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Piantadosi S., Byar D. P., Green S. B. The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol. 1988 May;127(5):893–904. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ricci M. A., Trevisani M. F., Beck W. C. Acute appendicitis. A 5-year review. Am Surg. 1991 May;57(5):301–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Richardson S., Stücker I., Hémon D. Comparison of relative risks obtained in ecological and individual studies: some methodological considerations. Int J Epidemiol. 1987 Mar;16(1):111–120. doi: 10.1093/ije/16.1.111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rydén C. I., Grunditz T., Janzon L. Acute appendicitis in patients above and below 60 years of age. Incidence rate and clinical course. Acta Chir Scand. 1983;149(2):165–170. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Schwartz S. The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: the potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. Am J Public Health. 1994 May;84(5):819–824. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.5.819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Susser M. The logic in ecological: I. The logic of analysis. Am J Public Health. 1994 May;84(5):825–829. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.5.825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Thomson H. J., Jones P. F. Active observation in acute abdominal pain. Am J Surg. 1986 Nov;152(5):522–525. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(86)90220-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Velanovich V., Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg. 1992 Apr;58(4):264–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Von Korff M., Koepsell T., Curry S., Diehr P. Multi-level analysis in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 May 15;135(10):1077–1082. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wen S. W., Naylor C. D. Diagnostic accuracy and short-term surgical outcomes in cases of suspected acute appendicitis. CMAJ. 1995 May 15;152(10):1617–1626. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. White J. J., Santillana M., Haller J. A., Jr Intensive in-hospital observation: a safe way to decrease unnecessary appendectomy. Am Surg. 1975 Dec;41(12):793–798. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES