Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cohort studies were found to be frequently biased by missing disease information due to death.
Binder, Nadine; Blümle, Anette; Balmford, James; Motschall, Edith; Oeller, Patrick; Schumacher, Martin.
Afiliação
  • Binder N; Institute for Prevention and Cancer Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Elsässerstr. 2, 79110 Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: nadine.binder@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
  • Blümle A; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
  • Balmford J; Institute for Prevention and Cancer Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Elsässerstr. 2, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
  • Motschall E; Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, 79104 Freiburg, Germany.
  • Oeller P; Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
  • Schumacher M; Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, 79104 Freiburg, Germany.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 105: 68-79, 2019 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30253218
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

In epidemiologic cohort studies with missing disease information due to death (MDID), conventional analyses right-censoring death cases at the last observation or at death may yield significant bias in relative risk and hazard ratio estimates. The aim of this study was to investigate susceptibility to this bias and assess its potential direction and magnitude. STUDY DESIGN AND

SETTING:

Literature review of selected epidemiologic, geriatric, and environmental journals in 2011-2012 and simulation study of various conventional approaches to handling missing disease data. A study was considered susceptible to MDID bias if disease information was collected at follow-up visits only, and a conventional analysis was performed on the data.

RESULTS:

Of 125 identified studies, 58 (46.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 37.7-55.1%) were classified as susceptible to MDID bias, of which six (10.3%, 95% CI 2.5-18.2%) attempted to address this in sensitivity analyses. The simulation revealed that depending on the analytic strategy for handling missing disease data, the potential exists for significant under- or over-estimation of risk factor effect estimates.

CONCLUSION:

Awareness of MDID bias is important as more adequate analysis methods exist permitting an unbiased analysis. Recommendations for better reporting and analysis of MDID are provided.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Viés / Mortalidade / Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Viés / Mortalidade / Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article