Advertisement

Quality Control and Good Epidemiological Practice

  • Preetha Rajaraman
  • Jonathan M. Samet

Abstract

The use of data is fundamental in epidemiology. Epidemiologic research on causation uses data in a search for the true nature of the relationship between exposure and disease. Similarly, research on the consequences of interventions seeks an unbiased characterization of the effects of independently varying factors on the outcome measure(s). One of the most rewarding moments for a researcher is obtaining the preliminary results from his or her study. However, the question “do I believe what I see?” should immediately come to mind. The answer to this question is determined in large part by the more mundane but critical question of how good is the quality of the data, rather than by the elegance of the scientific method. Errors that occur during study population selection or in the measurement of study exposures, outcomes, or covariates can lead to a biased estimate of the effect of exposure on risk for the disease of interest. Misclassification of exposure or disease that occurs randomly between all study participants decreases the power of the study to detect an association where it exists. Data collection that is differentially biased may have more severe consequences, and can lead to an incorrect assessment of the relationship between exposure and disease.

Keywords

Quality Assurance Data Entry Monetary Incentive Study Personnel Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti A (1990) Categorical data analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman D, Bland J (1983) Measurements in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions (2000) Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong B, White E (1992) Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Arts DG, De Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ (2002) Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 9:600–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA (1997) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1129–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asch DA, Christakis NA, Ubel PA (1998) Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget. A randomized trial comparing $2 bill versus $5 bill incentives. Med Care 36:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rimm EB, Litin L, Willet WC (1992) Correlations of vitamin A and E intakes with the plasma concentrations of carotenoids and tocopherols among American men and women. J Nutr 122: 1792–1801Google Scholar
  9. Baer A, Saroiu S, Koutsky LA (2002) Obtaining sensitive data through the Web: an example of design and methods. Epidemiol 13:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnett V, Lewis T (1994) Outliers in statistical data. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Berkanovic E (1980) The effect of inadequate language translation on Hispanics’ responses to health surveys. Am J Public Health 80:1273–1276Google Scholar
  12. Bisgard KM, Folsom AR, Hong CP, Sellers TA (1994) Mortality and cancer rates in nonrespondents to a prospective study of older women: 5-year follow-up. Am J Epidemiol 139:990–1000Google Scholar
  13. Blackmore CC, Richardson ML, Linnau KF, Schwed AM, Lomoschitz FM, Escobedo EM, Hunter JC, Jurkovich GJ, Cummings P (2003) Web-based image review and data acquisition form ultiinstitutional research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1243–1246Google Scholar
  14. Brenner H, Gefeller O (1997) Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Stat Med 16:981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breslow N, Day N (1980) Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume I — The analysis of case-control studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  16. Breslow N, Day N (1987) Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II — The design and analysis of cohort studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryant AH, Reinert A (2001) Epidemiology in the legal arena and the search for truth. Am J Epidemiol 154:S27–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Canner PL, Krol WF, Forman SA (1983) The Coronary Drug Project. External quality control programs. Control Clin Trials 4:441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Canner PL, Borhani NO, Oberman A, Cutler J, Prineas RJ, Langford H, Hooper FJ (1991) The Hypertension Prevention Trial: assessment of the quality of blood pressure measurements. Am J Epidemiol 134:379–392Google Scholar
  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1999) BRFSS summary quality control report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  21. Cherrie J, Schneider T (1998) Validation of a new method for structured subjective assessment of past concentrations. Annals Occup Hyg 43:235–245Google Scholar
  22. Cherrie J, Krantz S, Schneider T, Ohberg I, Kamstrup O, Linander W (1987) An experimental simulation of an early rock wool/slag wool production process. Ann Occup Hyg 31:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Choi BC, Pak AW, Purdham JT (1990) Effects of mailing strategies on response rate, response time, and cost in a questionnaire study among nurses. Epidemiol 1:72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Christiansen DH, Hosking JD, Dannenberg AL, Williams OD (1990) Computer-assisted data collection in multicenter epidemiologic research. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Control Clin Trials 11:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR (1990) High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, De Bacquer DA, de Leeuw PW, Duprez DA, Fagard RH, Gheeraert PJ, Missault LH, Braun JJ, Six RO, Van Der NP, O’Brien E (2003) Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-pressure recordings in patients with treated hypertension. N Engl J Med 348:2407–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clive RE, Ocwieja KM, Kamell L, Hoyler SS, Seiffert JE, Young JL, Henson DE, Winchester DP, Osteen RT, Menck HR (1995) A national quality improvement effort: cancer registry data. J Surg Oncol 58:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Collins RL, Ellickson PL, Hays RD, McCaffrey DF (2000) Effects of incentive size and timing on response rates to a follow-up wave of a longitudinal mailed survey. Eval Rev 24:347–363Google Scholar
  30. Comstock GW, Tockman MS, Helsing KJ, Hennesy KM (1979) Standardized respiratory questionnaires: comparison of the old with the new. Am Rev Respir Dis 119:45–53Google Scholar
  31. Cook RR (1991) Overview of good epidemiologic practices. J Occup Med 33: 1216–1220Google Scholar
  32. Cooper GR (1986) The importance of quality control in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Control Clin Trials 7:3ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Cottler LB, Zipp JF, Robins LN, Spitznagel EL (1987) Difficult-to-recruit respondents and their effect on prevalence estimates in an epidemiologic survey. Am J Epidemiol 125:329–339Google Scholar
  34. Crombie IK, Irving JM (1986) An investigation of data entry methods with a personal computer. Comput Biomed Res 19:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dawber TR, Meadors GF, Moore FE, Jr. (1951) Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: The Framingham Study. Am J Public Health 41:279–286Google Scholar
  36. Day S, Fayers P, Harvey D (1998) Double data entry: what value, what price? Control Clin Trials 19:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dillman D (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Dischinger P, DuChene AG (1986) Quality control aspects of blood pressure measurements in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Control Clin Trials 7:137S–157SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Doody MM, Sigurdson AS, Kampa D, Chimes K, Alexander BH, Ron E, Tarone RE, Linet MS (2003) Randomized trial of financial incentives and delivery methods for improving response to a mailed questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 157:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dosemeci M, Rothman N, Yin SN, Li GL, Linet M, Wacholder S, Chow WH, Hayes RB (1997) Validation of benzene exposure assessment. Ann NY Acad Sci 837:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. DuChene AG, Hultgren DH, Neaton JD, Grambsch PV, Broste SK, Aus BM, Rasmussen WL (1986) Forms control and error detection procedures used at the Coordinating Center of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Control Clin Trials 7:34S–45SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eaker S, Bergstrom R, Bergstrom A, Adami HO, Nyren O (1998) Response rate to mailed epidemiologic questionnaires: a population-based randomized trial of variations in design and mailing routines. Am J Epidemiol 147:74–82Google Scholar
  44. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337:867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I (2002) Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. Br Med J 324:1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Edwards S, Slattery ML, Mori M, Berry TD, Caan BJ, Palmer P, Potter JD (1994) Objective system for interviewer performance evaluation for use in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 140:1020–1028Google Scholar
  47. Egger M, Smith GD (1998) Bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 316:61–66Google Scholar
  48. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Fleming TR (1993) Data monitoring committees and capturing relevant information of high quality. Stat Med 12:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fowler F, Mangione T (1986) Reducing interviewer effects on health survey data. Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  52. Fowler F, Mangione T (1990) Standardized survey interviewing: minimizing interviewer-related error. Sage Publications, Newberry Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  53. Freedland KE, Carney RM (1992) Data management and accountability in behavioral and biomedical research. Am Psychol 47:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gassman JJ, Owen WW, Kuntz TE, Martin JP, Amoroso WP (1995) Data quality assurance, monitoring, and reporting. Control Clin Trials 16:104S–136SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gibson PJ, Koepsell TD, Diehr P, Hale C (1999) Increasing response rates for mailed surveys of Medicaid clients and other low-income populations. Am J Epidemiol 149:1057–1062Google Scholar
  56. Gilbart E, Kreiger N (1998) Improvement in cumulative response rates following implementation of a financial incentive. Am J Epidemiol 148:97–99Google Scholar
  57. Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, Barta DC, Steiner J (1996) Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 27:305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gissler M, Teperi J, Hemminki E, Merilainen J (1995) Data quality after restructuring a national medical registry. Scand J Soc Med 23:75–80Google Scholar
  59. Goldberg J, Gelfand HM, Levy PS (1980) Registry evaluation methods: a review and case study. Epidemiol Rev 2:210–220Google Scholar
  60. Goldman LR (2001) Epidemiology in the regulatory arena. Am J Epidemiol 154: S18–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Goodman SN (1999a) Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med 130:1005–1013Google Scholar
  62. Goodman SN (1999b) Toward evidence-based medical statistics: 1. The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med 130:995–1004Google Scholar
  63. Gordis L (2000) Epidemiology, 2nd edn. W.B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  64. Greenbaum DS, Bachmann JD, Krewski D, Samet JM, White R, Wyzga RE (2001) Particulate air pollution standards and morbidity and mortality: case study. Am J Epidemiol 154:S78–S90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Berlin JA, Asch DA (2002) Randomized trial of 5 dollars versus 10 dollars monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires. Med Care 40:834–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hawkins N, Evans J (1989) Subjective estimation of toluene exposures: a calibration study of industrial hygienists. Appl Ind Hygiene 4:61–68Google Scholar
  67. Hearst N, Hulley SB (1988) Using secondary data. In: Hulley SB, Cummings SR (eds) Designing clinical research. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, pp. 53–62Google Scholar
  68. Heilbrun LK, Nomura A, Stemmermann GN (1991) The effects of non-response in a prospective study of cancer: 15-year follow-up. Int J Epidemiol 20:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hill J (2003) Certification in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Personal communication with Rajaraman PGoogle Scholar
  70. Hilner JE, McDonald A, Van Horn L, Bragg C, Caan B, Slattery ML, Birch R, Smoak CG, Wittes J (1992) Quality control of dietary data collection in the CARDIA study. Control Clin Trials 13:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hoffman SC, Burke AE, Helzlsouer KJ, Comstock GW (1998) Controlled trial of the effect of length, incentives, and follow-up techniques on response to a mailed questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 148:1007–1011Google Scholar
  72. Holford TR, Stack C (1995) Study design for epidemiologic studies with measurement error. Stat Methods Med Res 4:339–358Google Scholar
  73. Horbar JD, Leahy KA (1995) An assessment of data quality in the Vermont-Oxford Trials Network database. Control Clin Trials 16:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hosking JD, Rochon J (1982) A comparison of techniques for detecting and preventing key-field errors. Proceedings of the Statistical Computing Section. 82–87. American Statistical Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  75. Hosking JD, Newhouse MM, Bagniewska A, Hawkins BS (1995) Data collection and transcription. Control Clin Trials 16:66S–103SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Hunt JR, White E (1998) Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev 20:57–70Google Scholar
  77. International Organization for Standardization (2003) ISO 9000:2000, ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 176Google Scholar
  78. Ioannidis JP (1998) Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 279:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. James J, Bolstein R (1992) Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 56:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. John EM, Savitz DA (1994) Effect of a monetary incentive on response to a mail survey. Ann Epidemiol 4:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Johnstone FD, Brown MC, Campbell D, MacGillivray I (1981) Measurement of variables: data quality control. Am J Clin Nutr 34:804–806Google Scholar
  82. Kaaks R, Ferrari P, Ciampi A, Plummer M, Riboli E (2002) Uses and limitations of statistical accounting for random error correlations, in the validation of dietary questionnaire assessments. Public Health Nutr 5:969–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kalantar JS, Talley NJ (1999) The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized study. J Clin Epidemiol 52:1117–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kannel WB (2000) Risk stratification in hypertension: new insights from the Framingham Study. Am J Hypertens 13:3S–10SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kellerman SE, Herold J (2001) Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 20:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kessler RC, Little RJ, Groves RM (1995) Advances in strategies for minimizing and adjusting for survey nonresponse. Epidemiol Rev 17:192–204Google Scholar
  87. Kiesler S, Sproull L (1986) Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 50:402–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kipen HM, Cody RP, Goldstein BD (1989) Use of longitudinal analysis of peripheral blood counts to validate historical reconstructions of benzene exposure. Environ Health Perspect 82:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kjelsberg MO, Cutler JA, Dolecek TA (1997) Brief description of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Am J Clin Nutr 65:191S–195SGoogle Scholar
  90. Knatterud GL, Rockhold FW, George SL, Barton FB, Davis CE, Fairweather WR, Honohan T, Mowery R, O’Neill R (1998) Guidelines for quality assurance in multicenter trials: a position paper. Control Clin Trials 19:477–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki J, Abrahamowicz M, White WH (2000) Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate air pollution and mortality. Investigators’ reports parts I and II. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  92. Kromhout H, Oostendorp Y, Heederik D, Boleij JS (1987) Agreement between qualitative exposure estimates and quantitative exposure measurements. Am J Ind Med 12:551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  94. Ling PM, Glantz SA (2002) Using tobacco-industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco-control campaigns. JAMA 287:2983–2989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Little RE, Davis AK (1984) Effectiveness of various methods of contact and reimbursement on response rates of pregnant women to a mail questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 120:161–163Google Scholar
  96. Maclure M, Schneeweiss S (2001) Causation of bias: the episcope. Epidemiol 12: 114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Maclure M, Willett WC (1987) Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 126:161–169Google Scholar
  98. Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J (1989) Increasing response rates in physicians’ mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health 79:638–639Google Scholar
  99. Martinson BC, Lazovich D, Lando HA, Perry CL, McGovern PG, Boyle RG (2000) Effectiveness of monetary incentives for recruiting adolescents to an intervention trial to reduce smoking. Prev Med 31:706–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Maudsley G, Williams EM (1999) What lessons can be learned for cancer registration quality assurance from data users? Skin cancer as an example. Int J Epidemiol 28:809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. McQuade CE, Kutvirt DM, Brylinski DA, Samet JM (1983) A tracking system for conducting epidemiological case-control studies. Comput Programs Biomed 16:149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Meinert CL, Tonascia S (1986) Controlled clinical trials: design, conduct, and analysis. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  103. Moorman PG, Newman B, Millikan RC, Tse CK, Sandler DP (1999) Participation rates in a case-control study: the impact of age, race, and race of interviewer. Ann Epidemiol 9:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mullooly JP (1990) The effects of data entry error: an analysis of partial verification. Comput Biomed Res 23:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Neaton JD, DuChene AG, Svendsen KH, Wentworth D (1990) An examination of the efficiency of some quality assurance methods commonly employed in clinical trials. Stat Med 9:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Olson SH (2001) Reported participation in case-control studies: changes over time. Am J Epidemiol 154:574–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Olson SH, Voigt LF, Begg CB, Weiss NS (2002) Reporting participation in casecontrol studies. Epidemiol 13:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Paolo AM, Bonaminio GA, Gibson C, Partridge T, Kallail K (2000) Response rate comparisons of e-mail-and mail-distributed student evaluations. Teach Learn Med 12:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Parkes R, Kreiger N, James B, Johnson KC (2000) Effects on subject response of information brochures and small cash incentives in a mail-based case-control study. Ann Epidemiol 10:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Perneger TV, Etter JF, Rougemont A (1993) Randomized trial of use of a monetary incentive and a reminder card to increase the response rate to a mailed health survey. Am J Epidemiol 138:714–722Google Scholar
  111. Post W, Kromhout H (1991) Semiquantitative estimates of exposure to methylene chloride adn styrene: the influence of quantitative exposure data. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 6:197–204Google Scholar
  112. Prud’homme GJ, Canner PL, Cutler JA (1989) Quality assurance and monitoring in the Hypertension Prevention Trial. Hypertension Prevention Trial Research Group. Control Clin Trials 10:84S–94SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Quan SF, Howard BV, Iber C, Kiley JP, Nieto FJ, O’Connor GT, Rapoport DM, Redline S, Robbins J, Samet JM, Wahl PW (1997) The Sleep Heart Health Study: design, rationale, and methods. Sleep 20:1077–1085Google Scholar
  114. Reisch LM, Fosse JS, Beverly K, Yu O, Barlow WE, Harris EL, Rolnick S, Barton MB, Geiger AM, Herrinton LJ, Greene SM, Fletcher SW, Elmore JG (2003) Training, quality assurance, and assessment of medical record abstraction in a multisite study. Am J Epidemiol 157:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC (2003) Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rosner B, Spiegelman D, Willett WC (1992) Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for random within-person measurement error. Am J Epidemiol 136:1400–1413Google Scholar
  117. Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  118. Sacks FM, Handysides GH, Marais GE, Rosner B, Kass EH (1986) Effects of a low-fat diet on plasma lipoprotein levels. Arch Intern Med 146:1573–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Samet JM (2000) Epidemiology and policy: the pump handle meets the new millennium. Epidemiol Rev 22:145–154Google Scholar
  120. Samet JM, Lee NL (2001) Bridging the gap: perspectives on translating epidemiologic evidence into policy. Am J Epidemiol 154:S1–S3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Samet JM, Zeger SL, Kelsall JE, Xu J, Kalkstein LS (1997) Particulate air pollution and daily mortality: analyses of the effects of weather and multiple air pollutants (The Phase IB Report of the Particle Epidemiology Evaluation Project). Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  122. Schweitzer M, Asch DA (1995) Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys: cost-effectiveness and bias. J Clin Epidemiol 48:1325–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R (1996) The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators. Ann Epidemiol 6:498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Shaw MJ, Beebe TJ, Jensen HL, Adlis SA (2001) The use of monetary incentives in a community survey: impact on response rates, data quality, and cost. Health Serv Res 35:1339–1346Google Scholar
  125. Silver RC, Holman EA, McIntosh DN, Poulin M, Gil-Rivas V (2002) Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11. JAMA 288:1235–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Slattery ML, Edwards SL, Caan BJ, Kerber RA, Potter JD (1995) Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies. Ann Epidemiol 5:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sorensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J (1996) A framework for evaluation of secondary data sources for epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol 25:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Spiegelman D, Schneeweiss S, McDermott A (1997) Measurement error correction for logistic regression models with an “alloyed gold standard”. Am J Epidemiol 145:184–196Google Scholar
  129. Spry VM, Hovell MF, Sallis JG, Hofsteter CR, Elder JP, Molgaard CA (1989) Recruiting survey respondents to mailed surveys: controlled trials of incentives and prompts. Am J Epidemiol 130:166–172Google Scholar
  130. Steeh C (1981) Trends in nonresponse rates 1952–1979. Public Opinion Quarterly 45:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Stram DO, Langholz B, Huberman M, Thomas DC (1999) Correcting for exposure measurement error in a reanalysis of lung cancer mortality for the Colorado Plateau uranium miners cohort. Health Phys 77:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Szklo M, Nieto FJ (2000) Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Aspen, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  133. The Chemical Manufacturers Association’s Epidemiology Task Force (1991) Guidelines for good epidemiological practices for occupational and environmental epidemiologic research. J Occup Med 33:1221–1229Google Scholar
  134. Thompson WD (1990) Kappa and attenuation of the odds ratio. Epidemiol 1:357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Thompson WD, Walter SD (1988) A reaapraisal of the kappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol 41:949–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Thornton A, Lee P (2000) Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 53:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Tielemans E, Heederik D, Burdorf A, Vermeulen R, Veulemans H, Kromhout H, Hartog K (1999) Assessment of occupational exposures in a general population: comparison of different methods. Occup Environ Med 56:145–151Google Scholar
  138. Turpin J, Rose R, Larsen B (2003) An adaptable, transportable web-based data acquisition platform for clinical and survey-based research. J Am Osteopath Assoc 103:182–186Google Scholar
  139. US Department of Health and Human Services (2001) Application of a Public Health Service Grant. PHS 398. Public Health ServiceGoogle Scholar
  140. US Department of Health Education and Welfare (DHEW) (1964) Smoking and health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General. DHEW Publication No. [PHS] 1103. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  141. US Department of Health Education and Welfare (DHEW) (1973) Final report of the Tuskegee Syphilis STudy Ad Hoc Advisory Panel. US Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  142. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1989) Toxic substances control act (TSCA): good laboratory practice standards. 40 CFR Part 792, 34034–34050Google Scholar
  143. Vantongelen K, Rotmensz N, van der Schueren E (1989) Quality control of validity of data collected in clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Data Management (SGDM). Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 25:1241–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Vardeman SB, Jobe JM (1999) Statistical quality assurance methods for engineers. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J.Google Scholar
  145. Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT, Mandel JS (1992) Selection of controls in case-control studies. I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol 135:1019–1028Google Scholar
  146. Wacholder S, Armstrong B, Hartge P (1993) Validation studies using an alloyed gold standard. Am J Epidemiol 137:1251–1258Google Scholar
  147. Wallace JM, Jr., Bachman JG, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, Schulenberg JE, Cooper SM (2002) Tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use: racial and ethnic differences among U.S. high school seniors, 1976–2000. Public Health Rep 117Suppl 1:S67–S75Google Scholar
  148. White E, Hunt JR, Casso D (1998) Exposure measurement in cohort studies: the challenges of prospective data collection. Epidemiol Rev 20:43–56Google Scholar
  149. Whitney CW, Lind BK, Wahl PW (1998) Quality assurance and quality control in longitudinal studies. Epidemiol Rev 20:71–80Google Scholar
  150. Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Underwood BA, Speizer FE, Rosner B, Hennekens CH (1983) Validation of a dietary questionnaire with plasma carotenoid and alpha-tocopherol levels. Am J Clin Nutr 38:631–639Google Scholar
  151. Willett WC, Sampson L, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Bain C, Witschi J, Hennekens CH, Speizer FE (1985) Reproducibiltiy and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionaire. Am J Epidemiol 122:51–65Google Scholar
  152. Wright P, Haybittle J (1979a) Design of forms for clinical trials (1). Br Med J 2:529–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Wright P, Haybittle J (1979b) Design of forms for clinical trials (2). Br Med J 2:590–592Google Scholar
  154. Wright P, Haybittle J (1979c) Design of forms for clinical trials (3). Br Med J 2:650–651Google Scholar
  155. Wyatt J (1995) Acquisition and use of clinical data for audit and research. J Eval Clin Pract 1:15–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Preetha Rajaraman
    • 1
  • Jonathan M. Samet
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and GeneticsNational Cancer InstituteMarylandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations