| Literature DB >> 22014275 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its limitations, ecological study design is widely applied in epidemiology. In most cases, adjustment for age is necessary, but different methods may lead to different conclusions. To compare three methods of age adjustment, a study on the associations between arsenic in drinking water and incidence of bladder cancer in 243 townships in Taiwan was used as an example.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22014275 PMCID: PMC3224075 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Distribution of arsenic exposure levels in well water
| Arsenic level (mg/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 0.04 | 0.05-0.08 | 0.09-0.16 | 0.17-0.32 | 0.33-0.64 | > 0.64 | |
| Average % of wells in each township | 91.0 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Estimated populationa | ||||||
| Males | 5 605 000 | 169 000 | 159 000 | 84 000 | 47 000 | 25 000 |
| Females | 5 144 000 | 156 000 | 147 000 | 77 000 | 43 000 | 23 000 |
| Total | 10 749 000 | 326 000 | 305 000 | 162 000 | 90 000 | 48 000 |
around-off to 1000; estimated total study population: 11 678 000.
Estimates of incremental relative risks (IRRs) for bladder cancer of men obtained by three different methods
| Predictors | Direct Method | Indirect Method | Variable Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRR [SE] | IRR [SE] | IRR [SE] | |
| Arsenic Exposurea | |||
| 0.05-0.08 mg/L | -0.029 [0.021] | -0.023 [0.017] | -0.016 [0.010] |
| 0.09-0.16 mg/L | 0.056 [0.030] | 0.042 [0.024] | 0.022 [0.013] |
| 0.17-0.32 mg/L | -0.054 [0.039] | -0.031 [0.032] | -0.012 [0.017] |
| 0.33-0.64 mg/L | 0.035 [0.045] | 0.021 [0.036] | 0.007 [0.020] |
| > 0.64 mg/L | 0.274 [0.036] | 0.228 [0.029] | 0.115 [0.016] |
| Urbanization Indexb | 0.167 [0.046] | 0.134 [0.037] | 0.169 [0.040] |
| Cigarette Salec | -0.047 [0.104] | -0.026 [0.084] | -0.006 [0.046] |
| Aged | |||
| 20-29 years | NAe | NA | 0.021 [0.019] |
| 30-39 years | NA | NA | -0.050 [0.026] |
| 40-49 years | NA | NA | -0.014 [0.035] |
| 50-59 years | NA | NA | -0.041 [0.028] |
| 60-69 years | NA | NA | 0.014 [0.028] |
| > 69 years | NA | NA | 0.037 [0.040] |
| p Value for the Modelf | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
aincremental relative risk for each 1% increase in residents exposed to arsenic levels in each exposure category.
bincremental relative risk for each one-unit increase in urbanization index.
cincremental relative risk for each 100 cigarettes sold per year.
dincremental relative risk for each 1% increase in residents in each age group.
enot included in the analyses.
fp value for F test of the significance of the model.
Estimates of incremental relative risks (IRR) for women obtained by three different methods
| Predictors | Direct Method | Indirect Method | Variable Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRR [SE] | IRR [SE] | IRR [SE] | |
| Arsenic Exposurea | |||
| 0.05-0.08 mg/L | -0.125 [0.045] | -0.077 [0.030] | -0.095 [0.046] |
| 0.09-0.16 mg/L | 0.259 [0.062] | 0.162 [0.041] | 0.214 [0.063] |
| 0.17-0.32 mg/L | -0.222 [0.082] | -0.136 [0.055] | -0.143 [0.082] |
| 0.33-0.64 mg/L | 0.103 [0.094] | 0.060 [0.062] | 0.032 [0.093] |
| > 0.64 mg/L | 0.489 [0.075] | 0.349 [0.050] | 0.354 [0.076] |
| Urbanization Indexb | 0.324 [0.097] | 0.241 [0.064] | 0.299 [0.212] |
| Cigarette Salec | 0.011 [0.219] | 0.009 [0.146] | -0.004 [0.219] |
| Aged | |||
| 20-29 years | NAe | NA | 0.122 [0.153] |
| 30-39 years | NA | NA | -0.249 [0.146] |
| 40-49 years | NA | NA | 0.346 [0.217] |
| 50-59 years | NA | NA | -0.170 [0.287] |
| 60-69 years | NA | NA | 0.065 [0.373] |
| > 69 years | NA | NA | -0.417 [0.304] |
| p Value for the Modelf | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
aincremental relative risk for each 1% increase in residents exposed to arsenic levels in each exposure category.
bincremental relative risk for each one-unit increase in urbanization index.
cincremental relative risk for each 100 cigarettes sold per year.
dincremental relative risk for each 1% increase in residents in each age group.
enot included in the analyses.
fp value for F test of the significance of the model.