OBJECTIVE: To assess participation bias in the assembly of a specimen repository for genetic studies and to examine the association of participation with outcome within the Olmsted County myocardial infarction (MI) cohort. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1979, to May 31, 2006, 3081 persons had MI in Olmsted County, MN. Face-to-face contact was used to recruit patients who were hospitalized for an acute event. Persons who had had an MI before establishment of this repository were contacted by mail. At initial contact, we sought consent to use blood samples for genetic studies. Persons who refused were contacted by mail and were asked to consent to the use of stored tissue samples. For deceased subjects, stored tissue was collected when available. RESULTS: Of the 3081 persons in the Olmsted County MI cohort, 1994 participated in the study; 1007 (50.5%) blood and 987 (49.5%) tissue specimens were provided. Participants were more likely to be younger men with hypertension, comorbidities, and non-ST-segment elevation MI (all, P<.05). Participants who provided blood specimens were more likely to have non-ST-segment elevation MI and lower Killip class than those who provided tissue. After adjustment for age, sex, hypertension, ST-segment elevation, Killip class, and comorbidities, participation was not associated with outcome. Participants who provided blood specimens were less likely to have heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.59; P<.01) or to die (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.21; P<.01) than those who provided tissue. CONCLUSION: A variety of sources can be used to assemble community specimen repositories. Baseline characteristics differed between participants and nonparticipants and, among participants, by specimen source. Participants who provided blood specimens had better outcomes than those who provided tissue specimens. No survival advantage was observed for participants after combining blood and tissue specimens.
OBJECTIVE: To assess participation bias in the assembly of a specimen repository for genetic studies and to examine the association of participation with outcome within the Olmsted County myocardial infarction (MI) cohort. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1979, to May 31, 2006, 3081 persons had MI in Olmsted County, MN. Face-to-face contact was used to recruit patients who were hospitalized for an acute event. Persons who had had an MI before establishment of this repository were contacted by mail. At initial contact, we sought consent to use blood samples for genetic studies. Persons who refused were contacted by mail and were asked to consent to the use of stored tissue samples. For deceased subjects, stored tissue was collected when available. RESULTS: Of the 3081 persons in the Olmsted County MI cohort, 1994 participated in the study; 1007 (50.5%) blood and 987 (49.5%) tissue specimens were provided. Participants were more likely to be younger men with hypertension, comorbidities, and non-ST-segment elevation MI (all, P<.05). Participants who provided blood specimens were more likely to have non-ST-segment elevation MI and lower Killip class than those who provided tissue. After adjustment for age, sex, hypertension, ST-segment elevation, Killip class, and comorbidities, participation was not associated with outcome. Participants who provided blood specimens were less likely to have heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.59; P<.01) or to die (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.21; P<.01) than those who provided tissue. CONCLUSION: A variety of sources can be used to assemble community specimen repositories. Baseline characteristics differed between participants and nonparticipants and, among participants, by specimen source. Participants who provided blood specimens had better outcomes than those who provided tissue specimens. No survival advantage was observed for participants after combining blood and tissue specimens.
Authors: Richard Shen; Jian-Bing Fan; Derek Campbell; Weihua Chang; Jing Chen; Dennis Doucet; Jo Yeakley; Marina Bibikova; Eliza Wickham Garcia; Celeste McBride; Frank Steemers; Francisco Garcia; Bahram G Kermani; Kevin Gunderson; Arnold Oliphant Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2005-06-03 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Pekka Jousilahti; Veikko Salomaa; Kari Kuulasmaa; Matti Niemelä; Erkki Vartiainen Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Colin B Begg; Irene Orlow; Amanda J Hummer; Bruce K Armstrong; Anne Kricker; Loraine D Marrett; Robert C Millikan; Stephen B Gruber; Hoda Anton-Culver; Roberto Zanetti; Richard P Gallagher; Terence Dwyer; Timothy R Rebbeck; Nandita Mitra; Klaus Busam; Lynn From; Marianne Berwick Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Adelaide M Arruda-Olson; Véronique L Roger; High S Chai; Mariza de Andrade; Brooke L Fridley; Julie M Cunningham; Sherine E Gabriel; Suzette J Bielinski Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: David E Lanfear; Philip G Jones; Sharon Cresci; Fengming Tang; Saif S Rathore; John A Spertus Journal: Genome Med Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 11.117