DOCSLIB.ORG

Practical Lessons on Improving Safety, Reproducibility and Efficiency Using a Dose Management Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Practical Lessons on Improving Safety, Reproducibility and Efficiency Using a Dose Management Software Radiology Insights Practical lessons on improving safety, reproducibility and efficiency using a dose management software Sebastian T. Schindera, MD Sebastian T. Schindera, MD Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland Practical lessons on improving safety, reproducibility and efficiency using a dose management software >> Compliance While the industry is largely 1. CT Procedure Growth, Implications and Dose self-regulating, new legislation Responsibility introduced by the European Union in 2013 (coming into force in 2018), will Since the introduction by Hounsfield and Based on the rapidly rising frequency of mean that radiologists and clinicians Cormack in 1972, computed tomography CT examinations and the potential risk of will be obligated to document patient (CT) has become one of the most impor- cancer induction, it is the great respon- dose for every diagnostic study with tant modalities in diagnostic imaging sibility of the radiological community, ionizing radiation. due to its strong positive impact on pa- including radiologists, technologists, tient outcome and patient flow. medical physicists and the CT manufac- turers, to participate in dose optimization As a result, its utilization increased rap- (Figure 1). idly over the last decades, especially in the industrialized world. For example, in Also, while the industry is largely self- the USA the number of CT investigations regulating, new legislation introduced grew on average 10% annually during by the European Union in 2013 (coming the last 15 years (1) and in Switzerland into force in 2018), will mean that radi- the number of CT examinations rose by ologists and clinicians will be obligated 142% between 1998 and 2008 (2). CT to document patient dose for every di- was responsible for 68% of the yearly agnostic study with ionizing radiation. medical radiation exposure of the Swiss Therefore, besides a rigorous review of population in 2008, although CT only the justification for each CT exam, the contributed 6% of medical studies with radiologist should ensure that patients ionizing radiation (2). undergo a CT examination in accordance with the ALARA principle (as low as rea- Current knowledge on the biological ef- sonably achievable). fects of low level radiation (<100 mSv), which is mostly applied in medical imag- Over the last few years, CT manufacturers ing, and the attributable risk of develop- have focused on the development of very ing cancer by radiation exposure are still effective technologies for dose reduction mainly based on studies on survivors of (e.g. iterative reconstruction, automatic the atomic bomb attacks on Japan in tube current modulation, dose-efficient 1945 (3). However, two recent retrospec- detectors) while preserving the diagnos- tive epidemiologic cohort-studies showed tic information. a correlation between radiation exposure by CT and a slightly increased cancer risk in children and young adults (4, 5). 2 Accordingly, radiology departments have rics, dose tracking can now be done in a spent considerable resources (e.g. time comprehensive and fully automated way. for evaluation and training, financial The analysis of this valuable data offers investment for state-of-the-art equip- radiologists, medical physicists and ad- ment) to improve patient safety in CT. ministrators an opportunity to monitor Unfortunately, the systematic and com- the actual CT dose distributions and helps prehensive measurement of the quality plan evidence based future investments outcome through meaningful indicators (e.g. continuous quality improvement such as CT dose metrics (e.g. volumetric programs, technical developments). CT dose index (CTDIvol), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), effective dose) has been Besides tracking and analyzing CT doses, often neglected in this context. Radimetrics also offers the opportunity to monitor the productivity and utilized A potential reason for this disregard is capacity of the CT scanners. the very complex and time-consuming work required to manually collect the Following are some practical examples doses from each CT scan performed at an from the University Hospital Basel on im- institution. With the introduction of dose proving patient safety in CT and monitor- management software, such as Radimet- ing productivity with Radimetrics. Figure 1 The dose management team of the University Hospital Basel analyzing their CT data. 3 2. CT Radiation Dose Management After the installation of Radimetrics at CT doses for an institution and can result the University Hospital Basel in Septem- in misleading conclusions. ber 2013, we decided to segment the >> Quality management of CT radiation dose into Protocol Management The total dose reduction for a routine CT two parts. We now differentiate between The most dramatic reduction in average of the chest is therefore 53% comparing dose management on an institutional dose was achieved for routine chest CT the data from 2012 with those from level and on a patient examination level. with or without contrast media. Based on 2014. the optimization of the technical param- 2.1 Dose Management at the eters, we were able to reduce the average The average effective dose for a Institutional Level effective dose for a routine CT of the chest routine CT of the chest differed up to Our main objectives of CT dose manage- from 6.4 mSv in 2012 down to 4.0 mSv in 4-fold among the scanners (Figure 2). ment at the institutional level are 2013 and 3.0 mSv in 2014 (Table 1). The Having this important information at total dose reduction for a routine CT of our disposal, young patients are now Q to know the average doses of our the chest is therefore 53% comparing the triaged for a routine CT of the chest to most frequently performed CT proto- data from 2012 with those from 2014. our two high-end CT scanners with the cols at any time for protocol man- goal to deliver the lowest doses for this agement and The average SSDE for the CT of the chest radiosensitive patient group. Q to have the possibility to perform has measured 5.5 mGy in 2014. These meaningful benchmarking. significant results represent an impor- tant reassurance for our institution in our Since the dose management software concerted efforts towards dose optimiza- tracks the dose from each CT examination tion over the last two years to achieve and then calculates the average dose for the lowest possible dose for our patients different CT protocols based on hundreds while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. to thousands of CT studies, we now have a global view of our delivered CT doses It also highlights the fact that we are on (Table 1). Using average CT doses, we first the right track. These achievements are compare ourselves to other institutions communicated internally and externally. by using national diagnostic reference Internally, our staff, including radiolo- levels or scientific publications and then gists and technologists, is frequently up- decide if optimization is necessary. dated with key data on CT dose with the goal to confirm the meaningfulness of When performing dose benchmarking, it our ambitious work in dose reduction. is essential to use average dose values based on a large number of CT scans, Focusing on patient safety through best since the patients` habitus can signifi- practice in CT has also led to an increased cantly influence the values of the tho- job satisfaction for our employees. The rax and abdomen with the application external communication of our CT doses of automatic tube current modulation. to our referring physicians and patients, Random examples of just a few CT stud- which is also included in our annual re- ies for dose benchmarking would not port and newsletters, is used as a mar- demonstrate a representative picture of keting tool to demonstrate our patient- 4 centered care. 2.2 Dose Management at the Patient Level for Patient Safety Benchmarking Our main objectives for CT dose man- At our institution, we also benchmark the agement at the patient level are doses between our four CT scanners, since they are not equally equipped with the Q to track cumulative patient effective >> Safety latest technologies for dose reduction. dose for alerting and At our institution, we set a threshold In 2013, two CT scanners were equipped Q to detect dose outliers for follow-up. dose value for each CT protocol using with iterative reconstruction technology the volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol). and automatic tube current modulation Cumulative Dose Alerting while the other two scanners did not By tracking the patient effective dose we If a dose outlier occurs, then our have those technologies available. aim to avoid unnoticed periodic CT scans dose management team receives an in young patients and patients with automatic email with an electronic link As a consequence, we detected substan- non-malignant disease, especially when to the patient file in Radimetrics. tial differences in the average doses be- non-ionizing imaging modalities (e.g. tween the four CT scanners. For example, MRI, ultrasound) can deliver equivalent the average effective dose for a routine diagnostic information. Before we had CT of the chest differed up to 4-fold Radimetrics, one of our patients received among the scanners (Figure 2). Having a total of 14 CT examinations within 6 this important information at our dis- months and thereby accumulated an ef- posal, young patients are now triaged fective dose of almost 170 mSv (Figure 3). for a routine CT of the chest to our two high-end CT scanners with the goal to de- The CT scans were indicated in the con- liver the lowest doses for this radiosensi- text of a pancreatitis with various com- tive patient group. Furthermore, reliable plications. Without the dose information data demonstrating the effectiveness of from Radimetrics, our radiologist was CT scanners with the latest dose reduc- lacking visibility for the fact that the tion technologies can be adjuvant in the patient`s cumulative radiation dose was decision-making process of an invest- increasing rapidly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple As It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD
    Understanding Relative Risk, Odds Ratio, and Related Terms: As Simple as It Can Get Chittaranjan Andrade, MD Each month in his online Introduction column, Dr Andrade Many research papers present findings as odds ratios (ORs) and considers theoretical and relative risks (RRs) as measures of effect size for categorical outcomes. practical ideas in clinical Whereas these and related terms have been well explained in many psychopharmacology articles,1–5 this article presents a version, with examples, that is meant with a view to update the knowledge and skills to be both simple and practical. Readers may note that the explanations of medical practitioners and examples provided apply mostly to randomized controlled trials who treat patients with (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies. Nevertheless, similar psychiatric conditions. principles operate when these concepts are applied in epidemiologic Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute research. Whereas the terms may be applied slightly differently in of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India different explanatory texts, the general principles are the same. ([email protected]). ABSTRACT Clinical Situation Risk, and related measures of effect size (for Consider a hypothetical RCT in which 76 depressed patients were categorical outcomes) such as relative risks and randomly assigned to receive either venlafaxine (n = 40) or placebo odds ratios, are frequently presented in research (n = 36) for 8 weeks. During the trial, new-onset sexual dysfunction articles. Not all readers know how these statistics was identified in 8 patients treated with venlafaxine and in 3 patients are derived and interpreted, nor are all readers treated with placebo. These results are presented in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Measures of Effect & Potential Impact
    Measures of Effect & Potential Impact Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD Assistant Professor McGill University, Montreal, Canada [email protected] 1 Big Picture Measures of Measures of Measures of potential disease freq effect impact First, we calculate measure of disease frequency in Group 1 vs. Group 2 (e.g. exposed vs. unexposed; treatment vs. placebo, etc.) Then we calculate measures of effect (which aims to quantify the strength of the association): Either as a ratio or as a difference: Ratio = (Measure of disease, group 1) / (Measure of disease, group 2) Difference = (Measure of disease, group 1) - (Measure of disease, group 2) Lastly, we calculate measures of impact, to address the question: if we removed or reduced the exposure, then how much of the disease burden can we reduce? Impact of exposure removal in the exposed group (AR, AR%) Impact of exposure remove in the entire population (PAR, PAR%) 2 Note: there is some overlap between measures of effect and impact 3 Measures of effect: standard 2 x 2 contingency epi table for count data (cohort or case-control or RCT or cross-sectional) Disease - Disease - no Column yes total (Margins) Exposure - a b a+b yes Exposure - c d c+d no Row total a+c b+d a+b+c+d (Margins) 4 Measures of effect: 2 x 2 contingency table for a cohort study or RCT with person-time data Disease - Disease - Total yes no Exposure - a - PYe yes Exposure – c - PY0 no Total a+c - PYe + PY0 Person-time in the unexposed group = PY0 5 Person-time in the exposed group = PYe STATA format for a 2x2 table [note that exposure
    [Show full text]
  • Attributable Risk Estimation Using Sas/Stat Software
    ATTRIBUTABLE RISK ESTIMATION USING SAS/STAT SOFTWARE Olaf Gefeller Abteilung Medizinische Statistik, Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen Abstract In epidemiologic studies devot~d to .the analysis of the relationship between an exposure characteristic and a disease the attributable risk constitutes an interesting epidemiologic risk measure. It can be interpreted as the proportion of cases of disease due to the exposure under study among all cases of disease in the study population. Thus, it indicates the impact of the exposure factor on the disease load of the population and can aid public health administrators in determining promising targets for disease preventive strategies in the population. The estimation of attributable risk from data arranged in contingency tables has received much attention in the statistical literature during recent years. However, none of the leading statistical software packages including SAS has incorporated the attributable risk in the catalogue of measures of association to be automatically calculated in some procedure. In the paper a brief introduction to the theory and application of attributable risk estimation from epidemiologic data is provided. Then, a general method is shown how to calculate attributable risk estimators under the multinomial sampling model usingSAS/STAT* software. Data from the Luebeck Blood Pressure Study, a cross-sectional study in the field of cardiovascular disease epidemiology, are used to illustrate the practical application of the method. Keywords: attributable risk, epidemiologic methods, measure of association 1. Introduction The quantification and measurement of disease risk associated with some exposure characteristic constitute a major goal of epidemiologic research. However, different conceptual approaches to describe the association between exposure and disease have been put forward in the ·epidemiologic literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Topics in (Genetic) Epidemiology
    Special Topics in (Genetic) Epidemiology Li Hsu [email protected] Review: Epidemiologic Studies for Complex Diseases I Complex diseases are contributed by both genetic and environmental risk factors I Observational studies are powerful tools in studying these risk factors. Investigators have no control over exposure assignment. As a result, exposure of interest is often confounded by a third factor that is associated with exposure and the disease. Genetic Factors I Breakthroughs in high throughput genotyping and sequencing technologies have allowed researchers to assess genome-wide genetic effects on disease risk I High-dimension I Accurate measurements I Confounding can be effectively accounted for by principal components derived from genome-wide SNPs I Areas that need further development: set-based association; high-dimensional risk prediction; GxE (or GxG) interaction Environmental Risk Factors I Besides confounding, measurement error is an issue for environmental risk factors I Technologies such as wearable devices and metabolomics are being developed to better quantify aspects of environmental risk factors (e.g., diet and exercise) I Becoming more and more high-dimensional I Measurement error I Confounding remains to be a tricky issue I Areas that need further development: functional data analysis to better characterize the effects of environmental covariates; measurement error; Mendelian randomization/instrumental variables Study Designs I Two commonly used study designs: I Case-control studies I Case-control studies are restrospective
    [Show full text]
  • Benefit-Risk Assessment: IMI-PROTECT Case Study Example
    Benefit-Risk Assessment: IMI-PROTECT case study example Juhaeri Juhaeri, Ph.D. Head of Pharmacoepidemiology, Sanofi Adjunct Assistant Professor, UNC Chapel Hill 30th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology & Therapeutic Risk Management, Taipei, 24 October 2014 Disclaimers Juhaeri Juhaeri is an employee of Sanofi. The views and opinions represented in this presentation are solely those of the presenter and are not endorsed by nor necessarily representative of those of Sanofi The 5th Annual Meeting: Patient Safety - A Sustained Focus from Scientific Ideas to Innovative Medicines May 12-15, 2013 2 Objectives • To understand existing frameworks for a structured BR assessment • To describe quantitative BR methods to integrate benefits and risks Using rimonabant as an example 3 FDA Structured approach Decision Evidence and Conclusions Factor Uncertainties and Reasons Analysis of Condition Current Treatment Options Benefit Risk Risk Management Benefit-Risk Summary Assessment http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm326192.htm 4 EMA Project: 2 level approach • Qualitative approach • Quantitative approach: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method to derive a numerical value for the benefit–risk balance recommended for more complex situations *Zafiropoulos N, Phillips L, Pignatti F, Luria X. Evaluating benefit-risk: an agency perspective. Regulatory Rapporteur 2012 (9): 5-8 5 ISPE: Benefit-Risk Assessment, Communication and Evaluation (BRACE) 6 The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) • The largest public-
    [Show full text]
  • Attributable Risk Percent in Case-Control Studies
    Br J Prev Soc Med: first published as 10.1136/jech.25.4.242 on 1 November 1971. Downloaded from Brit. J. prev. soc. Med. (1971), 25, 242- 244 ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENT IN CASE-CONTROL STUDIES PHILIP COLE AND BRIAN MacMAHON Department ofEpidemiology, Harvard School ofPublic Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 The difference between the disease rates of two groups, one exposed and one not exposed to a (2) Ae% = X 100% suspected aetiological factor, is a useful measure of R the risk associated with the factor. This measure is where R, the relative risk, is the ratio of the risk of most interest when the association is considered among the exposed to that among the unexposed. causal, and has been termed the attributable risk The numerator of (2), termed the excess relative (MacMahon and Pugh, 1970). Expressed as a risk, is the segment of the relative risk among the percentage of the total disease rate in a group (the exposed which exceeds the risk among the un- attributable risk percent), the measure describes exposed. Since relative risk reflects total risk, the percentage of the group's total risk which is in expressing a group's excess relative risk as a per- excess of the risk among persons not exposed to centage of its relative risk yields the attributable the suspect factor. Both measures (attributable risk risk percent. Expression (2) applies then to relative and attributable risk percent) may be computed risk estimates such as are available from the usual either for persons exposed to the suspect factor or case-control study.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Designs and Their Outcomes
    © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC CHAPTERNOT FOR SALE 3 OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © JonesStudy & Bartlett Designs Learning, LLC and Their Outcomes© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION “Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability.” —Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher Peter Wludyka © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OBJECTIVES ______________________________________________________________________________ • Define research design, research study, and research protocol. • Identify the major features of a research study. • Identify© Jonesthe four types& Bartlett of designs Learning,discussed in this LLC chapter. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC • DescribeNOT nonexperimental FOR SALE designs, OR DISTRIBUTIONincluding cohort, case-control, and cross-sectionalNOT studies. FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION • Describe the types of epidemiological parameters that can be estimated with exposed cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies along with the role, appropriateness, and interpreta- tion of relative risk and odds ratios in the context of design choice. • Define true experimental design and describe its role in assessing cause-and-effect relation- © Jones &ships Bartlett along with Learning, definitions LLCof and discussion of the role of ©internal Jones and &external Bartlett validity Learning, in LLC NOT FOR evaluatingSALE OR designs. DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION • Describe commonly used experimental designs, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), after-only (post-test only) designs, the Solomon four-group design, crossover designs, and factorial designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Population-Attributable Risk
    Population‐ Attributable risk (PAR) • PAR is the portion of the incidence of a disease in the population (exposed and un‐exposed) that is due to the exposure. • It is the incidence of the disease in the population that would be eliminated if exposure were eliminated. • PAR is computed by subtracting the incidence in the unexposed (Io) from the incidence in the total population POPULATION‐ATTRIBUTABLE RISK (exposed and unexposed) [Ip]. Hamisu Salihu, MD, PhD PAR = Ip –I0 Population‐Attributable risk (PAR) Population‐Attributable risk (PAR) • However, a more useful and more commonly employed formula is one that utilizes the level of the exposure in the population and the relative risk (magnitude of the association) for the outcome given the exposure. • PAR could also be coined thus: – Number of cases due to risk factor / Total number of cases Population‐Attributable Population‐Attributable risk (PAR) risk (PAR) • The numerator could also be re‐written as • = (Ie‐I0)/Total number of cases/(Number of exposed persons) (Number of exposed persons) × (risk difference) • Now, Total number of cases in the population is given by: • The formula then becomes: • (number of exposed persons) × (risk in the exposed) (Number of exposed persons) × (risk difference) / Total + (number of unexposed persons) × (risk in the unexposed) number of cases Let N be the total number of persons in that population, and let Pe be the prevalence of the exposure. (Number of exposed persons) × (Ie‐I0) / Total number of cases PARP = (Ie‐I0)/(N Pe) Ie + (1‐ N Pe) I0/ N Pe 1 Population‐ ‐+++ Attributable risk (PAR) PARP = (Ie‐I0)/N [PeIe + (1‐ Pe) I0/ N Pe = (Ie‐I0)/ [PeIe + (1‐ Pe) I0/ Pe = (Ie‐I0)/ PeIe ‐ Pe I0 + I0/ Pe = (Ie‐I0)/ Pe(Ie ‐ I0)+ I0/ Pe = Pe(Ie‐I0)/ Pe(Ie ‐ I0)+ I0 Now divide numerator and denominator by I0 Population‐Attributable Population‐Attributable risk (PAR) risk (PAR) • Question: What if the RR is an odds ratio and • What if you have more than one level of exposure levels.
    [Show full text]
  • BASIC CONCEPTS in EPIDEMIOLOGY Introduction
    BASIC CONCEPTS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY Introduction Hayley Coleman AIMS LO 8 To develop an understanding of research methodology and critical appraisal of the research literature 8a Research techniques Demonstrate an understanding of basic research methodology including both quantitative and qualitative techniques 8b Evaluation and critical appraisal of research Assess the importance of findings, using appropriate statistical analysis Cover: Study Types, Basic Epi and Statistics Disclaimer: I am not a statistician or academic, I have one hour STUDY DESIGNS Case-control studies Cohort studies Cross-sectional studies Geographical/Ecological studies Randomized controlled trials CASE-CONTROL STUDIES Start with identification of a group of cases (individuals with a particular health outcome) in a given population and a group of controls (individuals without the health outcome) to be included in the study. CASE CONTROL STUDIES Advantages Cost- effective relative to cohort study Efficient for study of rare disease or one with long latency Quick and fairly inexpensive Allows examination of multiple exposures Disadvantages Prone to selection/recall and observer bias Only examine one outcome Poor choice for rare exposures Temporal sequence may be hard to determine COHORT STUDY Group of individuals exposed to risk factor and group , unexposed to risk factor are followed over time (often years) to determine the occurrence of disease. Incidence of disease in the exposed group is compared with the incidence of disease in the unexposed group. Exposed
    [Show full text]
  • Population Attributable Risk for Colorectal and Breast Cancer in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United
    AMRC Open Research AMRC Open Research 2021, 3:11 Last updated: 24 SEP 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE Population attributable risk for colorectal and breast cancer in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved] Shatabdi Goon 1,2*, Hanseul Kim3*, Edward L. Giovannucci3,4 1Department of Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA 2Florida Department of Health, Pasco, FL, 34652, USA 3Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA 4Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA * Equal contributors v1 First published: 23 Mar 2021, 3:11 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12980.1 Latest published: 23 Mar 2021, 3:11 https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12980.1 Reviewer Status Invited Reviewers Abstract Background: The population attributable risk (PAR) is a statistic 1 2 commonly used for quantifying preventability of cancer. We report here PAR estimates for the United Kingdom (UK) along with its version 1 constituent countries for up-to-date risk factor-attributable colorectal 23 Mar 2021 report report cancer (CRC) and breast cancer (BC), focusing on diet and nutrition related factors and tobacco (CRC) using representative national 1. Yibing Ruan , Alberta Health Services, surveys. Methods: The PAR was calculated using established, modifiable risk Calgary, Canada factors by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR): physical activity, body mass index 2. María Teresa Álvarez Bañuelos , (BMI), alcoholic drinks, red meat, processed meat, dietary fiber, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz, Mexico dietary calcium, as well as cigarette smoking for CRC, and physical activity, BMI, alcoholic drinks, and fruits and vegetable consumption Any reports and responses or comments on the for BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiology
    Prof (Dr) RN Basu CONTENT TOPIC SLIDE NO> 12.Measures of association 154 Risk ratio 156 Rate ratio 159 Odds ratio 160 13.Measures of public health impact 164 Attributable proportion 165 Vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness 167 14.Mathematical model in infectious disease 169 155 Measures of Association • Measures of Association • The key to epidemiologic analysis is comparison • A measure of association quantifies the relationship between exposure and disease among two groups • Here, exposure is used in generic sense • It may mean not only exposure to foods, mosquitos, a partner with sexually transmissible disease, or a toxic waste dump • But it also may mean: • inherent characteristics of persons, (such as age, race, sex), • biologic characteristics (marital status), • activities (such as occupation, leisure activities), or • conditions under which they live (socioeconomic status or access to medical care) 156 Measures of Association • The measures of association for occurrence of disease in one group with disease occurrence in another group are: • Risk ratio (relative risk) • Rate ratio, and • Mortality ratio • Risk ratio • It is called relative risk of a health event • It compares the risk of a health event (disease, injury, risk factor, or death) • Comparison is done between risk of one group with risk of another group 157 Measures of Association • Method of calculation of risk ratio: • Dividing the risk (incidence proportion, attack rate) in group 1 by the risk (incidence proportion, attack rate) in group 2 • The two groups
    [Show full text]
  • Field Epidemiology, Selected Chapters
    Field Epidemiology Second Edition Edited by MICHAEL B. GREGG Selected Chapters Chapter 7 Designing Studies in the Field Richard C. Dicker Chapter 8 Analyzing and Interpreting Data Richard C. Dicker Chapter 7 DESIGNING STUDIES IN THE FIELD Richard C. Dicker For all but the most straightforward field investigations, you are likely to design and conduct an epidemiologic study of some sort. This is sometimes called an analytic study, to distinguish it from a descriptive study. The basic ingredients of epidemiologic studies consist of two groups: the observed group, such as a group of ill or exposed persons, and a comparison group, which provides baseline or “expected” data. Using these groups is an efficient way to evaluate hypotheses about causes of disease and risk factors that have been raised in earlier phases of the investigation. By comparing the observed data with the expected data from the comparison group, you can quantify the relationship between possible risk factors and disease, and can test the statistical significance of the various hypotheses that have been raised. The gold standard for an epidemiologic study is an experimental study such as a therapeutic trial, in which study participants are enrolled, randomly assigned into intervention or nonintervention (placebo) exposure groups, and then monitored over time. In public health practice, however, epidemiologists rarely conduct such experiments, because they are seldom in a position to assign exposures—exposures have generally already occurred through genetics, circumstance, or choice. As a result, almost all studies conducted by field epidemiologists are observational studies, in which the epidemiologists document rather than determine exposures.
    [Show full text]