Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Commentary
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rose G. The strategy of preventive medicine. London: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pearson TA. Coronary arteriography in the study of the epidemiology of coronary artery disease. Epidemiol Rev. 1984;6:140–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford statistical science series 13. Oxford University Press; 1994.

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Epidemiology Unit, National Public Health Institute, P.O. Box 95, 70701, Kuopio, Finland

    J. Pekkanen

  2. Department of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland

    J. Pekkanen

  3. Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain

    J. Sunyer

Authors
  1. J. Pekkanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Sunyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Pekkanen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pekkanen, J., Sunyer, J. Problems in using incidence to analyze risk factors in follow-up studies. Eur J Epidemiol 23, 581–584 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-008-9280-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-008-9280-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation