1 / 43

6. Overview of Epidemiologic Study Designs

6. Overview of Epidemiologic Study Designs. 2012. 04. 03. 역학 및 임상시험학 4 학기 이고은. 목차. LEARNING OBJECTIVES. Distinguish between experimental and observational studies.

napua
Download Presentation

6. Overview of Epidemiologic Study Designs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 6. Overview of Epidemiologic Study Designs 2012. 04. 03. 역학 및 임상시험학4학기 이고은

  2. 목차

  3. LEARNING OBJECTIVES • Distinguish between experimental and observational studies. • Describe the key characteristics of experimental , cohort, case-control , cross-sectional, and ecologic studies regarding subject selection, data collection, and analysis. • Identify the design of a particular study. • Discuss the factors that determine when a particular design is indicated.

  4. Introduction Several types of study designs • Experimental study • Observational study • Cohort study • Case-control study • Cross-sectional study • Ecological study

  5. Introduction • Tab 6-1 • the goal of all studies • to determine the relationship between an exposure and a disease with validity and precision using a minimum of resources • Validity : lack of bias and confounding • Bias • Confounding • Precision : lack of random error • false association between exposure and disease by chance

  6. 1. oVERview of experimental studies

  7. Experimental study • Definition • investigate the role of some agent in the prevention or treatment of a disease. Trial • active manipulation • Classification • by objective • preventive or prophylactic trial • therapeutic or clinical trial

  8. Experimental study • Fig 6-1 • Study population (=experimental population) • criteria reflect the purpose of the trial • adequate number for a true difference

  9. Experimental study • Informed consent • the process of gaining agreement • contents • the nature and objectives of the study, the tasks required of the participants • obtaining the participant’s oral or written consent • Assignment • Randomization • Less prone to bias • Producing groups with very similar characteristics • ex) coin flipping, random number table, computer • Treatment administration • using placebo

  10. Experimental study • Maintenance and assessment of Compliance • Noncompliance ⇒ smaller difference between groups ⇒ diluting the real impact of a treatment • Run-in period • 목적: to ascertain which potential participants are able to comply with the study regimen • run-in period 이후에 compliance가 좋은 대상자들만 시험에 등록된다 • Ascertaining the outcome • Outcome • 질병 예방이 목적일 때 : incidence • 질병의새로운 치료방법을 연구할 때 : disease recurrence, symptom improvement, length of survival, side effect • Length of follow-up : 연구중인 특정 결과에 따라 다름 • dropout, lost f/u에 따라 follow-up이 영향을 받을 수 있다

  11. Experimental study • Analysis • Intent-to-treat (= treatment assignment analysis) • classic analytic approach • 치료를 받았거나 끝났는가에 상관없이 모두를 분석 • give information on the effectiveness of a treatment under everyday practice condition • Efficacy analysis • determines the treatment effects under ideal condition (full treatment exactly as directed)

  12. 2. oVERview ofcohort studies

  13. Cohort study • Cohort • Definition : a group of people with a common characteristic or experience. follow-up, incidence, longitudinal study • healthy subject incidence of symptom, disease, death • 연구대상의 일반적인 특징은 exposure level이 같다 • Fig 6-2

  14. Cohort study • Terms • Characteristics of population • Fixed cohort • formed on the basis of irrevocable event • ex) undergoing a medical procedure • Closed cohort • a fixed cohort with no losses to follow up • Open population • exposures that can change over time (예: cigarette smoking) • f/u loss 가 있을 수 있다 • Timing • Prospective cohort study • past or current exposure future outcome • Waiting for outcome • Retrospective cohort study • Exposure and outcome already occurred study begins • Ambidirectional cohort study

  15. Cohort study • Selection of the exposed population • Special cohort • For studying health effects of rare exposure • Uncommon work place chemicals • Unusual diets • Uncommon lifestyle • Selected from occupational group or religious group • General cohort • typically assembled by common exposures ex) cigarette smoking / alcohol consumption • Selected from professional groups or well-defined geographic area • Selection of the comparison population • Internal comparison group • Unexposed members of the same cohort • First choice • General comparison • When it is not possible to find a comparable internal comparison group • a comparison cohort • Members of another cohort. • the least option because often exposed to other potentially harmful substances

  16. Cohort study • Sources of information • medical and employment records, interviews, direct physical exam, lab test, biological specimens, environmental monitoring • Health care records • Advantage: low expense, high level of accuracy and detail • Disadvantage: information (key characteristic) is often missing • Employment records • Used to identify individuals for studies of occupational exposure • Usually lack details on exposures and key information • All resources used for one group must be used for the other (∵biased results)

  17. Cohort study • Approaches to follow-up • 잘.... • Analysis • the primary objective of the analysis of cohort study data : occurrence of symptoms, disease, death in the exposed group occurrence of symptoms, disease, death in the unexposed group • Occurrence measurement • cumulative incidence or incidence rate • Relationship between the exposure and outcome • Absolute or relative difference between risks or rates

  18. 3. oVERview ofcase-control studies

  19. Case-control study • Subjects are selected on the basis of whether they have or do not have the disease • cases : those who have the disease • controls : those who do not the disease • Fig 6-3

  20. Case-control study • Selection of cases • Formulation of disease or case definition • Case identification and enrollment • Typical sources for identifying cases • Hospital or clinical patient rosters, death certificate, special surveys, cancer or birth defects registers • Should they be incident or prevalent? • 질병의 원인에 관심있는 연구자들은 incidence case를 선호한다 • 질병의 이환기간에 영향을 주는 factor 보다는 질병을 일으키는 factor에 더 관심이 있기때문 • Prevalent case외에 선택이 없는 연구를 해야 하는 경우도 있다 • ex) insidious disease whose exact onset is difficult to pinpoint • 해석에 주의해야 함 : Impossible to determine if the exposure is related to the inception of the disease, its duration, or a combination

  21. Case-control study • Selection of controls • Controls • from the same base population as the cases • “would criterion” • Crucial to the validity • From the same population • A member of the control group who gets the disease under study would end up as a case in the study • Controls must be sampled independently of exposure status • Exposed and unexposed controls should have the same probability of selection • Sources for identifying controls 1. Individuals from the general population 2. Individuals attending a hospital or clinic 3. Friends or relatives identified by the cases 4. Individuals who have died

  22. Case-control study • Population controls • typically selected when cases are identified from a well-defined population ex) residents of a geographic area • Advantage • from the same population as the cases • Disadvantage • Time-consuming and expensive to identify • Less interest in participating than cases • Less accurate recall (because generally healthy)

  23. Case-control study 2. Hospital controls • Which disease or events are suitable for inclusion? • illness in the control group should be unrelated to the exposure • control’s illness should have the same referral pattern to the health care facility as the case’s illness • Advantage • Easy to identify, good participation rate, less expensive than population controls, comparable characteristics to the cases • Recall of prior exposures will be similar to the cases’ recall, because they are also ill. • Disadvantage • Difficulty in determining appropriate illness for inclusion

  24. Case-control study 3. Decreased controls • Some or all of the cases are deceased by the time data collection begins • Same geographic area / same period • Comparable data collection procedure • ex) interview vs. interview • dead control • 죽은 사람들은 술, 담배, 마약을했을 가능성이 더 크다 4. Friend, spouse,relatives • Likely to share the cases’ socioeconomic status, race, age, educational level, genetic characteristic • Bias • If the study hypothesis involves a shared activity among the cases and controls

  25. Case-control study • Methods for sampling controls • survivor sampling • Predominant • Select controls from the “non-Cases” or “survivors” at the end of the case diagnosis and accrual period • case-base or case-cohort sampling • Select controls from the population at risk at the beginning of the case diagnosis and accrual period • risk set sampling • Controls are selected from population at risk as the cases are diagnosed • Sources of exposure information • interview, self-administered questionnaires, preexisting medical, pharmacy, registry, employment, insurance, birth, death, environmental records • Consider availability, accuracy, logistics, cost of data collection • Accuracy! • Because : Retrospective exposure

  26. Case-control study • Analysis : odds • Functions as rate of risk • Probability that an event will occur divided by the probability that it will not occur • = • odds ratio:

  27. Case-control study • Case-Crossover study • a variant of the case-control study • Developed for only a brief time following the exposure • Cases serve as their own controls • hazard period와 control period의 exposure frequency 를 비교 • Advantage • Elimination of confounding by characteristics – gender, race • Elimination of selection bias • Variability is reduced ☞ traditional case-control study보다 더 적은 수로 연구가 가능함

  28. 4. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design? Experimental studyvs. observational study

  29. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design?-Experimental • Experimental study • To learn about a prevent or treatment for a disease • No need data with a high degree of validity that is simply not possible in an observational study (bias and confounding) • When small difference between groups • Usually < 20% difference

  30. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design?-observational • To study the effects of a wider range of exposures • Limitation • Inability to have complete control over disturbing influences or extraneous factors • cohort or case-control? • cohort : provide a large number of possible health effects  preferable when little is known about the health consequences of an exposure • cohort : efficient for investigating a rare exposure • frequency of less than 20%

  31. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design?-observational • cohort or case-control? • case-control : provide information on a large number of possible risk factors • preferable when little is known about the etiology of a disease • Less time, less money than cohort • For studying rare disease because fewer subjects are needed, and for studying disease with long induction and latent periods • When exposure data are difficult or expensive to obtain • Relatively smaller sample size • When population under study is dynamic • Disadvantage • Retrospective data collection • Greater chance of bias • Difficult to establish the correct temporal relationship between the exposure and disease

  32. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design?-observational • retro- or prospective cohort study? • Retrospective cohort study • To study historical exposure • studying disease with long induction and latent period • Limitation : rely on existing records • Minimal information • Difficult to establish the correct temporal relationship between exposure and disease • Prospective cohort study • Less vulnerable to bias than retro- (outcomes not occurred when the cohort is assembled) • easier to establish a clear temporal relationship between exposure and outcome

  33. When Is It Desirable to Use a Particular Study Design?-observational • Fig 6-4

  34. 5. Other types of studies

  35. Cross-Sectional study vs. Ecological study Cross-Sectional study Ecological study • Examine association at a single point in time. • Measure exposure prevalence in relation to disease prevalence. • Examine rates of disease in relation to a population-level factor. • Population –level factor s include summaries of individual population members, environmental measures, and global measures. • Study groups are usually identified by place, time, or a combination of the two. characteristic characteristic • Tab 6-2 Limitation Advantage • Cannot infer temporal sequence between exposure and disease if exposure is a changeable characteristic. • May include preponderance of prevalent cases of long duration and healthy worker survivor • Generalizability and low cost Limitation Advantage • Ecological fallacy • Lack of information on important variables • low cost , wide range of exposure levels, and the ability to examine contextual effects on health

  36. Cross-Sectional study • Definition • Examine the relationship between diseases (or other health-related characteristics) and other variables of interest • As they exist in a defined population at one particular time • Population selection • Without regard to exposure or disease status • ‘snapshot’, prevalence • If the dates of the exposures are ascertained • Possible to examine disease prevalence in relation to past exposures • For public health planning • For etiologic research • Common in occupational settings using data from pre-employment physical examinations and company health insurance plans • ex) low back pain among crane operator, straddle-carrier drivers, office workers

  37. Cross-Sectional study • Limitation • Sequence?? between exposure and disease • People who die soon after diagnosis or who recover quickly • Less likely to be identified as diseased • Bias in occupational setting: Healthy worker survivor effect • Not include former workers • ‘remain’ tend to be healthier • Advantage • General population sample •  results highly generalizable • Need relatively short period of time(low cost) • Temporal inference problem can be avoided • If an inalterable characteristic(ex>genetic trait..) is focus • If exposure measure reflects present and past exposure • ex) x-ray fluorescence(XRF) measurement reflect cumulative exp.

  38. 6. Ecologic studies

  39. Ecological study • 2 key features • Population unit of analysis • Analysis unit : population or groups of people • An exposure status that is the property of the population • Identifying groups by place, time or combination • ex) place : air pollution and mortality rate • ex) time : HIV seroprevalence change over time among injecting drug users in cities with and without needle-exchange program

  40. Ecological study • A special type of time-trend ecologic study • Separate the effects of three time-related variables: age, calendar time, year of birth • ex>Homicide mortality data from US from 1930s through 1990s • double • most of the increase : 1960 – 1974 • peak age : 20 to 39 years • men born around 1965 1985 to 1994 • alcohol, drug abuse, lethal weapons

  41. Ecological study • Ecological and individual level components • chlorinated drinking water and birth defect(Norway) • group level data : exposure • individual level data : birth defect, confounding variables • population : children born in 1990s • 4 group : 0%, 0.1~ 49.9%, 59 ~ 99.9%. 100% • Overall 15% increase, 99% increased risk of urinary tract defects among women • Ecological fallacy or ecological bias • because of lack of individual level information • An association observed between variables on an aggregate level does not necessarily represent the association that exists at the individual level • woman(chlorinate water) ≠ woman(defect baby) • Inability to defects subtle or complicated relationship • ex>HIV seroprevalence: simultaneous other program

  42. Ecological study • Advantage • done quickly and inexpensively (preexisting data) • achieve wider range of exposure levels • can be used to understand how context affects the health of persons and groups through selection, distribution, inter action, adaption, and other responses • studies of the transmission of infectious disease

  43. 감사합니다

More Related