Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 581–584 | Cite as

Problems in using incidence to analyze risk factors in follow-up studies

  • J. PekkanenEmail author
  • J. Sunyer
Commentary

Abstract

The most common practice to analyze epidemiological follow-up studies is to analyze risk factors of new, i.e. incident, cases of disease. However, analysis of incidence assumes that diseases exist in true dichotomies, which is unlikely to be true. It has also recently been shown that in many typical situations it is very difficult to separate the association between risk factors of disease at baseline and during follow-up using analyses of incidence. Situation is especially problematic for diseases that have large misclassification and low incidence, like asthma. We suggest that reliance on analysis of incidence may be a major obstacle into discovering causes of such disease. Only with greater attention into how to define and how to analyze prospective studies are we likely to learn sufficiently of risk factors of such disease to finally arrive at means for their prevention.

Keywords

Incidence Misclassification Bias Cohort studies Asthma 

References

  1. 1.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose G. The strategy of preventive medicine. London: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pekkanen J, Sunyer J, Chinn S. Nondifferential disease misclassification may bias incidence risk ratios away from the null. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:281–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basagana X, Sunyer J, Zock JP, et al. Incidence of asthma and its determinants among adults in Spain. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:1133–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pearson TA. Coronary arteriography in the study of the epidemiology of coronary artery disease. Epidemiol Rev. 1984;6:140–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holt PG, Macaubas C, Stumbles PA, Sly PD. The role of allergy in the development of asthma. Nature. 1999;402(6760):B12–7. doi: 10.1038/35037009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pekkanen J, Pearce N. Defining asthma in epidemiological studies. Eur Respir J. 1999;14:951–7. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14d37.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chinn S, Jarvis D, Burney P, Luczynska C, Ackermann-Liebrich U, Anto JM, et al. Increase in diagnosed asthma but not in symptoms in the European community respiratory health survey. Thorax. 2004;59:646–51. doi: 10.1136/thx.2004.021642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chinn S, Schouten JP. Reproducibility of non-specific bronchial challenge in adults: implications for design, analysis and interpretation of clinical and epidemiological studies. Thorax. 2005;60:395–400. doi: 10.1136/thx.2004.039230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Copeland KT, Checkoway H, McMichael AJ, et al. Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;105:488–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morrison AS. Screening. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 499–518.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner H, Gefeller O. Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Stat Med. 1997;16:981–91. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<981::AID-SIM510>3.0.CO;2-N.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:926–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pekkanen J, Sunyer J, Anto JM, Burney P. European community respiratory health study operational definitions of asthma in studies on its aetiology. Eur Respir J. 2005;26:28–35. doi: 10.1183/09031936.05.00120104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brenner H, Gefeller O. Use of positive predictive value to correct for disease misclassification in epidemiological studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138:1007–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chambless LE, Roeback JR. Methods for assessing difference between groups in change when initial measurements is subject to intra-individual variation. Stat Med. 1993;12:1213–37. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780121104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yanez NDIII, Kronmal RA, Shemanski LR. The effects of measurement error in response variables and tests of association of explanatory variables in change models. Stat Med. 1998;17:2597–606. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981130)17:22<2597::AID-SIM940>3.0.CO;2-G.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolfe R, Carlin JB, Patton GC. Transitions in an imperfectly observed binary variable: depressive symptomatology in adolescents. Stat Med. 2003;22:427–40. doi: 10.1002/sim.1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford statistical science series 13. Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu FB, Goldberg J, Hedeker D, et al. Comparison of population-averaged and subject-specific approaches for analyzing repeated binary outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:694–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biino G, Rezzani C, Grassi M, et al. ECRHS screening questionnaire scoring: a methodological suggestion for asthma assessment. J Outcome Res. 2000–2001;4:740–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Epidemiology UnitNational Public Health InstituteKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Department of Public Health and Clinical NutritionUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland
  3. 3.Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations