Sources of Error in Clinical Epidemiology

  • Jørn Olsen
  • Kaare Christensen
  • Jeff Murray
  • Anders Ekbom
Part of the Springer Series on Epidemiology and Public Health book series (SSEH, volume 1)


Within the field of clinical epidemiology bias is always a concern and the field is plagued by studies which have not taken this into account. Lack of insights in problems caused by confounding by indication, differential misclassification of exposure, differential misclassification of outcome, and selection bias have resulted in premature claims of causality. However, it is fair to say that during the last decade there has been a growing awareness of the problems, but it is still too easy to find many examples of a suboptimal study design where bias has led to wrong results.


Breast Cancer Rheumatoid Arthritis Prostate Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Excess Risk 
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.


  1. 1.
    Lagergren J, Ye W, Ekbom A. Intestinal cancer after cholecystectomy: is bile involved in carcinogenesis? Gastroenterology 2001;121(3):542–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ye W, Lagergren J, Nyrén O, Ekbom A. Risk of pancreatic cancer after cholecystectomy: a cohort study in Sweden. Gut 2001;49(5):678–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Zauber AG, Warshauer ME, Stolley PD, Shapiro S. Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132(6):1051–1055.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giovannucci E, Tosteson TD, Speizer FE, Ascherio A, Vessey MP, Colditz GA. A retrospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. JAMA 1993;269(7):878–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. A prospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. JAMA 1993;269(7):873–877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lynge E. Prostate cancer is not increased in men with vasectomy in Denmark. J Urol 2002;168(2):488–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86(21):1584–1592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88(23):1759–1764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Melbye M, Wohlfartht J, Olsen JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336(2):81–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geborek P, Bladström A, Turesson C, Gulfe A, Petersson IF, Saxne T, Olsson H, Jacobsson LT. Tumour necrosis factor blockers do not increase overall tumour risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but may be associated with an increased risk of lymphomas. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64(5):699–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Askling J, Baecklund E, Granath F, Geborek P, Fored M, Backlin C, Bertilsson L, Cöster L, Jacobsson LT, Lindblad S, Lysholm J, Rantapää-Dahlqvist S, Saxne T, van Vollenhoven R, Klareskog L, Feltelius N. Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and risk of malignant lymphomas: relative risks and time trends in the Swedish Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68(5):648–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jørn Olsen
    • 1
  • Kaare Christensen
    • 2
  • Jeff Murray
    • 3
  • Anders Ekbom
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, 2182 MedLabsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations