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.
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
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
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
Morrison AS. Screening. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 499–518.Google Scholar
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
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
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