Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Occupational and Environmental Medicine logoLink to Occupational and Environmental Medicine
. 2002 Jul;59(7):459–465. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.7.459

Comparison of two different approaches for the analysis of data from a prospective cohort study: an application to work related risk factors for low back pain

W Hoogendoorn 1, P Bongers 1, H C W de Vet 1, J Twisk 1, W van Mechelen 1, L Bouter 1
PMCID: PMC1740320  PMID: 12107294

Abstract

Aims: To compare the results of a traditional approach using standard regression for the analysis of data from a prospective cohort study with the results of generalised estimating equations (GEE) analysis.

Methods: The research was part of a three year prospective cohort study on work related risk factors for low back pain. The study population consisted of a cohort of 1192 workers with no low back pain at baseline. Information on work related physical and psychosocial factors and the occurrence of low back pain was obtained by means of questionnaires at baseline and at the three annual follow up measurements. In a traditional standard logistic regression model, physical and psychosocial risk factors at baseline were related to the cumulative incidence of low back pain during the three year follow up period. In a GEE logistic model, repeated measurements of the physical and psychosocial risk factors were related to low back pain reported at one measurement point later.

Results: The traditional standard regression model showed a significant effect of flexion and/or rotation of the upper part of the body (OR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.0), but not of moving heavy loads (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 0.7 to 3.1). The GEE model showed a significant effect of both flexion and/or rotation of the upper part of the body (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.5 to 3.3) and moving heavy loads (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.4). No significant associations with low back pain were found for the psychosocial work characteristics with either method, but the GEE model showed weaker odds ratios for these variables than the traditional standard regression model.

Conclusions: Results show that there are differences between the two analytical approaches in both the magnitude and the precision of the observed odds ratios.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (159.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bongers P. M., de Winter C. R., Kompier M. A., Hildebrandt V. H. Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1993 Oct;19(5):297–312. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burdorf A., Sorock G. Positive and negative evidence of risk factors for back disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997 Aug;23(4):243–256. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eisen E. A. Methodology for analyzing episodic events. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25 (Suppl 4):36–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Godin G., Jobin J., Bouillon J. Assessment of leisure time exercise behavior by self-report: a concurrent validity study. Can J Public Health. 1986 Sep-Oct;77(5):359–362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hoogendoorn W. E., Bongers P. M., de Vet H. C., Douwes M., Koes B. W., Miedema M. C., Ariëns G. A., Bouter L. M. Flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work are risk factors for low back pain: results of a prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 Dec 1;25(23):3087–3092. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012010-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hoogendoorn W. E., Bongers P. M., de Vet H. C., Houtman I. L., Ariëns G. A., van Mechelen W., Bouter L. M. Psychosocial work characteristics and psychological strain in relation to low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001 Aug;27(4):258–267. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hoogendoorn W. E., van Poppel M. N., Bongers P. M., Koes B. W., Bouter L. M. Physical load during work and leisure time as risk factors for back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999 Oct;25(5):387–403. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kuorinka I., Jonsson B., Kilbom A., Vinterberg H., Biering-Sørensen F., Andersson G., Jørgensen K. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987 Sep;18(3):233–237. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Riihimäki H. Musculoskeletal diseases--a continuing challenge for epidemiologic research. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25 (Suppl 4):31–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tager I. B. Outcomes in cohort studies. Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):15–28. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Twisk J. W. Different statistical models to analyze epidemiological observational longitudinal data: an example from the Amsterdam Growth and Health Study. Int J Sports Med. 1997 Jul;18 (Suppl 3):S216–S224. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-972718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Willett W. C., Colditz G. A. Approaches for conducting large cohort studies. Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):91–99. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES