DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges in Meta-Analyses with Observational Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Evid Based Mental Health: first published as 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300129 on 5 March 2020. Downloaded from Statistics in practice Challenges in meta- analyses with observational studies Silvia Metelli,1,2 Anna Chaimani 1,3 1Université de Paris, Research ABSTRact mainly related to the high risk for within- study and Center of Epidemiology and Objective Meta- analyses of observational studies across- study biases, as well as to the presence of Statistics (CRESS- UMR1153), increased heterogeneity. INSERM, INRA, F-75004, Paris, are frequently published in the literature, but they are France generally considered suboptimal to those involving A major issue of observational evidence is that 2Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. This is due to it is known to have limited internal validity as it de Paris (APHP), Paris, France is subject to both bias and confounding. Overall, 3 the increased risk of biases that observational studies Cochrane France, Paris, France may entail as well as because of the high heterogeneity observational study designs are not the most appro- that might be present. In this article, we highlight aspects priate to assess the causal relationship between an Correspondence to Dr Anna Chaimani, Université of meta- analyses with observational studies that need intervention and an outcome as several characteris- de Paris, Research Center of more careful consideration in comparison to meta- tics might differ or might change over time between Epidemiology and Statistics analyses of RCTs. the different intervention groups. So, the inclusion Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS- Methods We present an overview of recommendations of observational studies in a meta- analysis might UMR1153), INSERM, INRA, Paris from the literature with respect to how the different introduce bias in the summary effect. To mitigate the 75004, France; anna. chaimani@ parisdescartes. fr steps of a meta- analysis involving observational studies risk of confounding and to make more comparable should be comprehensively conducted. We focus more on the different study groups, investigators usually Received 27 November 2019 issues arising at the step of the quantitative synthesis, in adjust the relative effects for several characteristics Revised 4 February 2020 terms of handling heterogeneity and biases. We briefly that may be related to the outcome and/or to the Accepted 5 February 2020 Published Online First describe some sophisticated synthesis methods, which intervention. Propensity scores (ie, the probability 5 March 2020 may allow for more flexible modelling approaches than of treatment assignment conditional on observed common meta- analysis models. We illustrate the issues baseline characteristics) are now also being used encountered in the presence of observational studies frequently in the analysis of observational studies using an example from mental health, which assesses as they likely allow reduction of confounding and the risk of myocardial infarction in antipsychotic drug selection bias. Despite the fact that these methods users. have the potential to produce less biassed results, Results The increased heterogeneity observed among at the meta-anal ysis level they increase the meth- studies challenges the interpretation of the diamond, odological heterogeneity as often different studies while the inclusion of short exposure studies may lead use different analysis methods or different adjust- to an exaggerated risk for myocardial infarction in this ment factors and the comparability of their results population. is questionable. Apart from methodological hetero- Conclusions In the presence of observational geneity, clinical heterogeneity is also expected to be study designs, prior to synthesis, investigators should much higher than in meta-analyses of RCTs since http://ebmh.bmj.com/ carefully consider whether all studies at hand are observational studies are based on less stringent able to answer the same clinical question. The inclusion criteria. potential for a quantitative synthesis should be guided An additional problem in the synthesis of through examination of the amount of clinical and observational studies is that it is always chal- methodological heterogeneity and assessment of lenging or even impossible to assess the risk of possible biases. bias both within and across studies. The latter is because preregistration and protocol prepara- on October 1, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. tion are not mandatory for observational studies, and as a result, unpublished studies or partly INTRODUCTION unpublished results cannot be identified. This Systematic reviews and meta-anal yses help to estab- leads to an increased risk of publication bias and lish evidence- based clinical practice and resolve other reporting biases such as selective outcome contradictory research outcomes while supporting reporting. With respect to within- study bias, in research planning and prioritisation.1 Therefore, contrast to RCTs, the lack of widely agreed quality meta- analysis is being increasingly used in most criteria and the absence of sufficient empirical medical fields with the aim to reach an overall evidence to support the focus on particular study features render the assessment of the risk of bias © Author(s) (or their understanding of clinical outcomes and their sources employer(s)) 2020. No of variation. Although synthesis of randomised for observational studies and their meta- analysis commercial re- use. See rights controlled trials (RCTs) is generally considered rather challenging. To date, more than 80 tools and permissions. Published as the highest level of clinical evidence, there are have been proposed to assess the credibility of by BMJ. several concerns regarding the potential of meta- observational studies, but most of them have not To cite: Metelli S, analysis of observational studies to provide reli- been used in practice. Recently, a draft Cochrane Chaimani A. Evid Based Ment able results.2 The reasons making researchers being risk of bias tool for non-randomised studies was Health 2020;23:83–87. sceptical with synthesising observational studies are also developed that considers each observational Metelli S, Chaimani A. Evid Based Ment Health 2020;23:83–87. doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300129 83 Evid Based Mental Health: first published as 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300129 on 5 March 2020. Downloaded from Statistics in practice study as an attempt to mimic a hypothetical pragmatic Synthesising data and controlling for bias randomised trial.3 Nevertheless, this tool has not been final- Observational studies usually have larger sample sizes than RCTs ised yet. and might yield highly precise results.2 Given all the aforemen- Despite all the above issues, observational data not only tioned issues of observational evidence (ie, bias and confounding), offer a valuable source of supplementary information to RCTs this phenomenon might lead to spurious inferences because but also, for some clinical questions, provide the most reliable usually the more precise the summary effects, the stronger the data (eg, safety of interventions and long-term outcomes) or conclusions of the investigators. Further, when observational even the only source of available evidence (eg, effectiveness of and randomised studies are synthesised using typical methods transplantation). In addition, results from observational studies (eg, classical fixed or random effects meta-analysis), the weight might be more directly applicable to the general populations of observational studies would be larger than that of the RCTs, as they are designed under a more real- life setting than RCTs, although the latter usually give more reliable results. Thus, it is which usually involve very restricted populations treated under of great importance to consider very carefully the setting of each 4 highly standardised care. Therefore, meta- analysis of observa- study before proceeding with the synthesis of the results, and tional data alone or in combination with RCTs (when possible) whether it is appropriate to answer the research question of the 5 is often desirable. However, a methodological systematic review meta- analysis. of meta- analyses of observational studies in the field of psychi- At the stage of data synthesis, the main issues in the pres- atry found several deficiencies in terms of assessing study quality, ence of observational studies are (1) how to accommodate the publication bias and risk for confounding, while the majority of possibly large heterogeneity that may be present especially 6 the meta- analyses found significant heterogeneity. when different types of observational studies, or also RCTs, In this article, we review methods and recommendations in are combined in the same analysis and (2) how to account for the literature for the different steps of a meta- analysis involving different biases. Overall, using a fixed effect meta- analysis does observational studies. Using an example from mental health, we not seem a reasonable approach considering that observational present and discuss the issues that frequently arise due to the studies generally have very variable populations, which are nature of these data. followed under different conditions. In case of multiple obser- vational designs or combination with RCTs, these discrepancies would likely be magnified. The random effects model accounts METHODS better for this apparent heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis or meta- Searching for relevant studies regression by study design and by type
Recommended publications
  • Adaptive Clinical Trials: an Introduction

    Adaptive Clinical Trials: an Introduction

    Adaptive clinical trials: an introduction What are the advantages and disadvantages of adaptive clinical trial designs? How and why were Introduction adaptive clinical Adaptive clinical trial design is trials developed? becoming a hot topic in healthcare research, with some researchers In 2004, the FDA published a report arguing that adaptive trials have the on the problems faced by the potential to get new drugs to market scientific community in developing quicker. In this article, we explain new medical treatments.2 The what adaptive trials are and why they report highlighted that the pace of were developed, and we explore both innovation in biomedical science is the advantages of adaptive designs outstripping the rate of advances and the concerns being raised by in the available technologies and some in the healthcare community. tools for evaluating new treatments. Outdated tools are being used to assess new treatments and there What are adaptive is a critical need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical trials? clinical trials.2 The current process for developing Adaptive clinical trials enable new treatments is expensive, takes researchers to change an aspect a long time and in some cases, the of a trial design at an interim development process has to be assessment, while controlling stopped after significant amounts the rate of type 1 errors.1 Interim of time and resources have been assessments can help to determine invested.2 In 2006, the FDA published whether a trial design is the most a “Critical Path Opportunities
  • Quasi-Experimental Studies in the Fields of Infection Control and Antibiotic Resistance, Ten Years Later: a Systematic Review

    Quasi-Experimental Studies in the Fields of Infection Control and Antibiotic Resistance, Ten Years Later: a Systematic Review

    HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author Infect Control Manuscript Author Hosp Epidemiol Manuscript Author . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 12. Published in final edited form as: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 February ; 39(2): 170–176. doi:10.1017/ice.2017.296. Quasi-experimental Studies in the Fields of Infection Control and Antibiotic Resistance, Ten Years Later: A Systematic Review Rotana Alsaggaf, MS, Lyndsay M. O’Hara, PhD, MPH, Kristen A. Stafford, PhD, MPH, Surbhi Leekha, MBBS, MPH, Anthony D. Harris, MD, MPH, CDC Prevention Epicenters Program Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Abstract OBJECTIVE.—A systematic review of quasi-experimental studies in the field of infectious diseases was published in 2005. The aim of this study was to assess improvements in the design and reporting of quasi-experiments 10 years after the initial review. We also aimed to report the statistical methods used to analyze quasi-experimental data. DESIGN.—Systematic review of articles published from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, in 4 major infectious disease journals. METHODS.—Quasi-experimental studies focused on infection control and antibiotic resistance were identified and classified based on 4 criteria: (1) type of quasi-experimental design used, (2) justification of the use of the design, (3) use of correct nomenclature to describe the design, and (4) statistical methods used. RESULTS.—Of 2,600 articles, 173 (7%) featured a quasi-experimental design, compared to 73 of 2,320 articles (3%) in the previous review (P<.01). Moreover, 21 articles (12%) utilized a study design with a control group; 6 (3.5%) justified the use of a quasi-experimental design; and 68 (39%) identified their design using the correct nomenclature.
  • Removing Hidden Confounding by Experimental Grounding

    Removing Hidden Confounding by Experimental Grounding

    Removing Hidden Confounding by Experimental Grounding Nathan Kallus Aahlad Manas Puli Uri Shalit Cornell University and Cornell Tech New York University Technion New York, NY New York, NY Haifa, Israel [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Observational data is increasingly used as a means for making individual-level causal predictions and intervention recommendations. The foremost challenge of causal inference from observational data is hidden confounding, whose presence cannot be tested in data and can invalidate any causal conclusion. Experimental data does not suffer from confounding but is usually limited in both scope and scale. We introduce a novel method of using limited experimental data to correct the hidden confounding in causal effect models trained on larger observational data, even if the observational data does not fully overlap with the experimental data. Our method makes strictly weaker assumptions than existing approaches, and we prove conditions under which it yields a consistent estimator. We demonstrate our method’s efficacy using real-world data from a large educational experiment. 1 Introduction In domains such as healthcare, education, and marketing there is growing interest in using observa- tional data to draw causal conclusions about individual-level effects; for example, using electronic healthcare records to determine which patients should get what treatments, using school records to optimize educational policy interventions, or using past advertising campaign data to refine targeting and maximize lift. Observational datasets, due to their often very large number of samples and exhaustive scope (many measured covariates) in comparison to experimental datasets, offer a unique opportunity to uncover fine-grained effects that may apply to many target populations.
  • A Guide to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prediction Model Performance

    A Guide to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prediction Model Performance

    RESEARCH METHODS AND REPORTING A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance Thomas P A Debray,1,2 Johanna A A G Damen,1,2 Kym I E Snell,3 Joie Ensor,3 Lotty Hooft,1,2 Johannes B Reitsma,1,2 Richard D Riley,3 Karel G M Moons1,2 1Cochrane Netherlands, Validation of prediction models is diagnostic test accuracy studies. Compared to therapeu- University Medical Center tic intervention and diagnostic test accuracy studies, Utrecht, PO Box 85500 Str highly recommended and increasingly there is limited guidance on the conduct of systematic 6.131, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands common in the literature. A systematic reviews and meta-analysis of primary prognosis studies. 2Julius Center for Health review of validation studies is therefore A common aim of primary prognostic studies con- Sciences and Primary Care, cerns the development of so-called prognostic predic- University Medical Center helpful, with meta-analysis needed to tion models or indices. These models estimate the Utrecht, PO Box 85500 Str 6.131, 3508 GA Utrecht, summarise the predictive performance individualised probability or risk that a certain condi- Netherlands of the model being validated across tion will occur in the future by combining information 3Research Institute for Primary from multiple prognostic factors from an individual. Care and Health Sciences, Keele different settings and populations. This Unfortunately, there is often conflicting evidence about University, Staffordshire, UK article provides guidance for the predictive performance of developed prognostic Correspondence to: T P A Debray [email protected] researchers systematically reviewing prediction models. For this reason, there is a growing Additional material is published demand for evidence synthesis of (external validation) online only.
  • Is It Worthwhile Including Observational Studies in Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness?

    Is It Worthwhile Including Observational Studies in Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness?

    CRD_mcdaid05_Poster.qxd 13/6/05 5:12 pm Page 1 Is it worthwhile including observational studies in systematic reviews of effectiveness? The experience from a review of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma Catriona Mc Daid, Suzanne Hartley, Anne-Marie Bagnall, Gill Ritchie, Kate Light, Rob Riemsma Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK Background • Overall there were considerable problems with quality Figure 1: Mapping of included studies (see Table). Without randomised allocation there was a Retinoblastoma is a rare malignant tumour of the retina and high risk of selection bias in all studies. Studies were also usually occurs in children under two years old. It is an susceptible to detection and performance bias, with the aggressive tumour that can lead to loss of vision and, in retrospective studies particularly susceptible as they were extreme cases, death. The prognoses for vision and survival less likely to have a study protocol specifying the have significantly improved with the development of more intervention and outcome assessments. timely diagnosis and improved treatment methods. Important • Due to the considerable limitations of the evidence clinical factors associated with prognosis are age and stage of identified, it was not possible to make meaningful and disease at diagnosis. Patients with the hereditary form of robust conclusions about the relative effectiveness of retinoblastoma may be predisposed to significant long-term different treatment approaches for childhood complications. retinoblastoma. Historically, enucleation was the standard treatment for unilateral retinoblastoma. In bilateral retinoblastoma, the eye ■ ■ ■ with the most advanced tumour was commonly removed and EBRT Chemotherapy EBRT with Chemotherapy the contralateral eye treated with external beam radiotherapy ■ Enucleation ■ Local Treatments (EBRT).
  • Observational Clinical Research

    Observational Clinical Research

    E REVIEW ARTICLE Clinical Research Methodology 2: Observational Clinical Research Daniel I. Sessler, MD, and Peter B. Imrey, PhD * † Case-control and cohort studies are invaluable research tools and provide the strongest fea- sible research designs for addressing some questions. Case-control studies usually involve retrospective data collection. Cohort studies can involve retrospective, ambidirectional, or prospective data collection. Observational studies are subject to errors attributable to selec- tion bias, confounding, measurement bias, and reverse causation—in addition to errors of chance. Confounding can be statistically controlled to the extent that potential factors are known and accurately measured, but, in practice, bias and unknown confounders usually remain additional potential sources of error, often of unknown magnitude and clinical impact. Causality—the most clinically useful relation between exposure and outcome—can rarely be defnitively determined from observational studies because intentional, controlled manipu- lations of exposures are not involved. In this article, we review several types of observa- tional clinical research: case series, comparative case-control and cohort studies, and hybrid designs in which case-control analyses are performed on selected members of cohorts. We also discuss the analytic issues that arise when groups to be compared in an observational study, such as patients receiving different therapies, are not comparable in other respects. (Anesth Analg 2015;121:1043–51) bservational clinical studies are attractive because Group, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists they are relatively inexpensive and, perhaps more Anesthesia Quality Institute. importantly, can be performed quickly if the required Recent retrospective perioperative studies include data O 1,2 data are already available.
  • Confounding Bias, Part I

    Confounding Bias, Part I

    ERIC NOTEBOOK SERIES Second Edition Confounding Bias, Part I Confounding is one type of Second Edition Authors: Confounding is also a form a systematic error that can occur in bias. Confounding is a bias because it Lorraine K. Alexander, DrPH epidemiologic studies. Other types of can result in a distortion in the systematic error such as information measure of association between an Brettania Lopes, MPH bias or selection bias are discussed exposure and health outcome. in other ERIC notebook issues. Kristen Ricchetti-Masterson, MSPH Confounding may be present in any Confounding is an important concept Karin B. Yeatts, PhD, MS study design (i.e., cohort, case-control, in epidemiology, because, if present, observational, ecological), primarily it can cause an over- or under- because it's not a result of the study estimate of the observed association design. However, of all study designs, between exposure and health ecological studies are the most outcome. The distortion introduced susceptible to confounding, because it by a confounding factor can be large, is more difficult to control for and it can even change the apparent confounders at the aggregate level of direction of an effect. However, data. In all other cases, as long as unlike selection and information there are available data on potential bias, it can be adjusted for in the confounders, they can be adjusted for analysis. during analysis. What is confounding? Confounding should be of concern Confounding is the distortion of the under the following conditions: association between an exposure 1. Evaluating an exposure-health and health outcome by an outcome association.
  • How to Get Started with a Systematic Review in Epidemiology: an Introductory Guide for Early Career Researchers

    How to Get Started with a Systematic Review in Epidemiology: an Introductory Guide for Early Career Researchers

    Denison et al. Archives of Public Health 2013, 71:21 http://www.archpublichealth.com/content/71/1/21 ARCHIVES OF PUBLIC HEALTH METHODOLOGY Open Access How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: an introductory guide for early career researchers Hayley J Denison1*†, Richard M Dodds1,2†, Georgia Ntani1†, Rachel Cooper3†, Cyrus Cooper1†, Avan Aihie Sayer1,2† and Janis Baird1† Abstract Background: Systematic review is a powerful research tool which aims to identify and synthesize all evidence relevant to a research question. The approach taken is much like that used in a scientific experiment, with high priority given to the transparency and reproducibility of the methods used and to handling all evidence in a consistent manner. Early career researchers may find themselves in a position where they decide to undertake a systematic review, for example it may form part or all of a PhD thesis. Those with no prior experience of systematic review may need considerable support and direction getting started with such a project. Here we set out in simple terms how to get started with a systematic review. Discussion: Advice is given on matters such as developing a review protocol, searching using databases and other methods, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and data synthesis including meta-analysis. Signposts to further information and useful resources are also given. Conclusion: A well-conducted systematic review benefits the scientific field by providing a summary of existing evidence and highlighting unanswered questions. For the individual, undertaking a systematic review is also a great opportunity to improve skills in critical appraisal and in synthesising evidence.
  • Guidelines for Reporting Meta-Epidemiological Methodology Research

    Guidelines for Reporting Meta-Epidemiological Methodology Research

    EBM Primer Evid Based Med: first published as 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713 on 12 July 2017. Downloaded from Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research Mohammad Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713 Abstract The goal is generally broad but often focuses on exam- Published research should be reported to evidence users ining the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect, describing the distribu- Evidence-Based Practice with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal tion of research evidence in a specific setting, exam- Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication Minnesota, USA by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting ining heterogeneity and exploring its causes, identifying are available for several types of studies but not for and describing plausible biases and providing empirical meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta- evidence for hypothesised associations. Unlike classic Correspondence to: epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review epidemiology, the unit of analysis for meta-epidemio- Dr Mohammad Hassan Murad, or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact logical studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes Evidence-based Practice Center, of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street 6–8 observed effect and provide empirical evidence for outcomes. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta- In this guide, we adapt the items used in the PRISMA murad. mohammad@ mayo. edu 9 epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The statement for reporting systematic reviews and outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually meta-analysis to fit the setting of meta- epidemiological not clinical outcomes.
  • Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials: Why Use Them, and How to Run and Report Them Philip Pallmann1* , Alun W

    Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials: Why Use Them, and How to Run and Report Them Philip Pallmann1* , Alun W

    Pallmann et al. BMC Medicine (2018) 16:29 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1017-7 CORRESPONDENCE Open Access Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them Philip Pallmann1* , Alun W. Bedding2, Babak Choodari-Oskooei3, Munyaradzi Dimairo4,LauraFlight5, Lisa V. Hampson1,6, Jane Holmes7, Adrian P. Mander8, Lang’o Odondi7, Matthew R. Sydes3,SofíaS.Villar8, James M. S. Wason8,9, Christopher J. Weir10, Graham M. Wheeler8,11, Christina Yap12 and Thomas Jaki1 Abstract Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented. We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results.
  • Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology

    Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology

    The Young Epidemiology Scholars Program (YES) is supported by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and administered by the College Board. Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology Manuel Bayona Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of North Texas Fort Worth, Texas and Chris Olsen Mathematics Department George Washington High School Cedar Rapids, Iowa Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology Contents Lesson Plan . 3 The Logic of Inference in Science . 8 The Logic of Observational Studies and the Problem of Bias . 15 Characteristics of the Relative Risk When Random Sampling . and Not . 19 Types of Bias . 20 Selection Bias . 21 Information Bias . 23 Conclusion . 24 Take-Home, Open-Book Quiz (Student Version) . 25 Take-Home, Open-Book Quiz (Teacher’s Answer Key) . 27 In-Class Exercise (Student Version) . 30 In-Class Exercise (Teacher’s Answer Key) . 32 Bias in Epidemiologic Research (Examination) (Student Version) . 33 Bias in Epidemiologic Research (Examination with Answers) (Teacher’s Answer Key) . 35 Copyright © 2004 by College Entrance Examination Board. All rights reserved. College Board, SAT and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Entrance Examination Board. Other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners. Visit College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.com. Copyright © 2004. All rights reserved. 2 Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology Lesson Plan TITLE: Observational Studies and Bias in Epidemiology SUBJECT AREA: Biology, mathematics, statistics, environmental and health sciences GOAL: To identify and appreciate the effects of bias in epidemiologic research OBJECTIVES: 1. Introduce students to the principles and methods for interpreting the results of epidemio- logic research and bias 2.
  • Study Types Transcript

    Study Types Transcript

    Study Types in Epidemiology Transcript Study Types in Epidemiology Welcome to “Study Types in Epidemiology.” My name is John Kobayashi. I’m on the Clinical Faculty at the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice, at the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington in Seattle. From 1982 to 2001, I was the state epidemiologist for Communicable Diseases at the Washington State Department of Health. Since 2001, I’ve also been the foreign adviser for the Field Epidemiology Training Program of Japan. About this Module The modules in the epidemiology series from the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice are intended for people working in the field of public health who are not epidemiologists, but who would like to increase their understanding of the epidemiologic approach to health and disease. This module focuses on descriptive and analytic epide- miology and their respective study designs. Before you go on with this module, we recommend that you become familiar with the following modules, which you can find on the Center’s Web site: What is Epidemiology in Public Health? and Data Interpretation for Public Health Professionals. We introduce a number of new terms in this module. If you want to review their definitions, the glossary in the attachments link at the top of the screen may be useful. Objectives By now, you should be familiar with the overall approach of epidemiology, the use of various kinds of rates to measure disease frequency, and the various ways in which epidemiologic data can be presented. This module offers an overview of descriptive and analytic epidemiology and the types of studies used to review and investigate disease occurrence and causes.