Literature DB >> 17435216

Avoiding bias from aggregate measures of exposure.

Stephen W Duffy1, Håkan Jonsson, Olorunsola F Agbaje, Nora Pashayan, Rhian Gabe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sometimes in descriptive epidemiology or in the evaluation of a health intervention policy change, proportions exposed to a risk factor or to an intervention are used as explanatory variables in log-linear regressions for disease incidence or mortality. AIM: To demonstrate how estimates from such models can be substantially inaccurate as estimates of the effect of the risk factor or intervention at individual level. To show how the individual level effect can be correctly estimated by excess relative risk models.
METHODS: The problem and solution are demonstrated using data on prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate cancer incidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17435216      PMCID: PMC2465682          DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.050203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  6 in total

1.  Biases in ecological studies: utility of including within-area distribution of confounders.

Authors:  V Lasserre; C Guihenneuc-Jouyaux; S Richardson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Population exposure to ultraviolet radiation in Finland 1920-1995: Exposure trends and a time-series analysis of exposure and cutaneous melanoma incidence.

Authors:  Katja Kojo; Christer T Jansen; Pia Nybom; Laura Huurto; Jarmo Laihia; Taina Ilus; Anssi Auvinen
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 6.498

Review 3.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1987

4.  Incidence of female breast cancer in relation to prevalence of risk factors in Denmark.

Authors:  M Ewertz; S W Duffy
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1994-03-15       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Breast cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with breast cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors study.

Authors:  G R Howe; J McLaughlin
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Reproductive factors and risk for breast cancer in Iceland.

Authors:  H Tulinius; N E Day; G Jóhannesson; O Bjarnason; M Gonzales
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1978-06-15       Impact factor: 7.396

  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  A multi-step machine learning approach to assess the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on NO2 attributable deaths in Milan and Rome, Italy.

Authors:  Luca Boniardi; Federica Nobile; Massimo Stafoggia; Paola Michelozzi; Carla Ancona
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2022-01-16       Impact factor: 5.984

2.  Complexities in the estimation of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  S W Duffy; E Lynge; H Jonsson; S Ayyaz; A H Olsen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 7.640

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.