Where is Epidemiology going? Jan P Vandenbroucke Bern, STROBE meeting August 2010 Part II.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Postgraduate Course 7. Evidence-based management: Research designs.
Advertisements

Experiments and Variables
An introduction Epidemiology matters: a new introduction to methodological foundations Chapter 1.
Study Designs in Epidemiologic
EPID Introduction to Analysis and Interpretation of HIV/STD Data Confounding Manya Magnus, Ph.D. Summer 2001 adapted from M. O’Brien and P. Kissinger.
Epidemiologic study designs
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre In Collaboration with Reyada Training & Management Consultancy, Dubai-UAE Cochrane Collaboration and Systematic.
“Personality, Socioeconomic Status, and All-Cause Mortality in the United States” - Chapman BP et al. Journal Club 02/24/11.
Using causal graphs to understand bias in the medical literature.
Chance, bias and confounding
Causal Diagrams: Directed Acyclic Graphs to Understand, Identify, and Control for Confounding Maya Petersen PH 250B: 11/03/04.
Quantitative Research Deals with quantities and relationships between attributes (variables). Involves the collection and analysis of highly structured.
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE
Cohort Studies Hanna E. Bloomfield, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Associate Chief of Staff, Research Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
1 Chapter 10 Correlation and Regression We deal with two variables, x and y. Main goal: Investigate how x and y are related, or correlated; how much they.
Covariate Selection for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
EPIDEMIOLOGY Why is it so damn confusing?. Disease or Outcome Exposure ab cd n.
Chapter 4 Principles of Quantitative Research. Answering Questions  Quantitative Research attempts to answer questions by ascribing importance (significance)
1 PH 240A: Chapter 8 Mark van der Laan University of California Berkeley (Slides by Nick Jewell)
Stratification and Adjustment
Cohort Study.
Causal Graphs, epi forum
Concepts of Interaction Matthew Fox Advanced Epi.
Writing the Research Paper BY: DR. AWATIF ALAM Associate Professor.
Reading Scientific Papers Shimae Soheilipour
Study Design. Study Designs Descriptive Studies Record events, observations or activities,documentaries No comparison group or intervention Describe.
Epidemiology The Basics Only… Adapted with permission from a class presentation developed by Dr. Charles Lynch – University of Iowa, Iowa City.
AETIOLOGY Case control studies (also RCT, cohort and ecological studies)
Web of Causation; Exposure and Disease Outcomes Thomas Songer, PhD Basic Epidemiology South Asian Cardiovascular Research Methodology Workshop.
Class Starter Please list the first five words or phrases that come to your mind when you hear the word : CHEMISTRY.
Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1Oct-151 H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1 Causal Graphs, epi forum Hein Stigum
 Is there a comparison? ◦ Are the groups really comparable?  Are the differences being reported real? ◦ Are they worth reporting? ◦ How much confidence.
Study Designs in Epidemiologic
Factorial Design of Experiments Kevin Leyton-Brown.
Correlational Research Chapter Fifteen Bring Schraw et al.
Introduction to confounding and DAGs
A short introduction to epidemiology Chapter 2b: Conducting a case- control study Neil Pearce Centre for Public Health Research Massey University Wellington,
Is the association causal, or are there alternative explanations? Epidemiology matters: a new introduction to methodological foundations Chapter 8.
Study Designs for Clinical and Epidemiological Research Carla J. Alvarado, MS, CIC University of Wisconsin-Madison (608)
통계적 추론 (Statistical Inference) 삼성생명과학연구소 통계지원팀 김선우 1.
EXPERIMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
LECTURE 5 HYPOTHESIS TESTING EPSY 640 Texas A&M University.
Instructor Resource Chapter 14 Copyright © Scott B. Patten, Permission granted for classroom use with Epidemiology for Canadian Students: Principles,
11/20091 EPI 5240: Introduction to Epidemiology Confounding: concepts and general approaches November 9, 2009 Dr. N. Birkett, Department of Epidemiology.
1 Basic epidemiological study designs and its role in measuring disease exposure association M. A. Yushuf Sharker Assistant Scientist Center for Communicable.
The Scientific Method aka: Scientific Inquiry. What is Science? The goal of science is to investigate and understand the natural world, to explain events.
Instructor Resource Chapter 15 Copyright © Scott B. Patten, Permission granted for classroom use with Epidemiology for Canadian Students: Principles,
01/20151 EPI 5344: Survival Analysis in Epidemiology Confounding and Effect Modification March 24, 2015 Dr. N. Birkett, School of Epidemiology, Public.
Matching. Objectives Discuss methods of matching Discuss advantages and disadvantages of matching Discuss applications of matching Confounding residual.
Design of Clinical Research Studies ASAP Session by: Robert McCarter, ScD Dir. Biostatistics and Informatics, CNMC
POPLHLTH 304 Regression (modelling) in Epidemiology Simon Thornley (Slides adapted from Assoc. Prof. Roger Marshall)
Motivation We wish to study the effect of genotype, measured at cohort baseline on incident disease during follow-up. Question: should we exclude cohort.
Mediation: The Causal Inference Approach David A. Kenny.
Research Methods in Psychology Introduction to Psychology.
Manuscript Review: A Checklist From: Seals, D.R and H Tanaka Advances in Physiology Education 23:52-58.
Experimental Psychology PSY 433 Chapter 5 Research Reports.
MATH & SCIENCE.  Pre-Algebra  Elementary algebra  Intermediate algebra  Coordinate geometry  Plane geometry  Trigonometry.
1 Causation in epidemiology, confounding and bias Imre Janszky Faculty of Medicine NTNU.
Variable selection in Regression modelling Simon Thornley.
1 Study Design Imre Janszky Faculty of Medicine, ISM NTNU.
TOPIC 1.2, RISK. SPECIFICATIONS: RISK 1.18 Analyse and interpret quantitative data on illness and mortality rates to determine health risks (including.
Confounding of indirect effects in the "real world" Danella Hafeman.
Meta-analysis of observational studies Nicole Vogelzangs Department of Psychiatry & EMGO + institute.
Measures of disease frequency Simon Thornley. Measures of Effect and Disease Frequency Aims – To define and describe the uses of common epidemiological.
Using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) to assess confounding Glenys Webster & Anne Harris May 14, 2007 St Paul’s Hospital Statistical “Rounds”
Validity in epidemiological research Deepti Gurdasani.
DAGs intro without exercises 1h Directed Acyclic Graph
Counterfactual models Time dependent confounding
Effect Modifiers.
Presentation transcript:

Where is Epidemiology going? Jan P Vandenbroucke Bern, STROBE meeting August 2010 Part II

Four topics The ‘surge’ of Comparative Effectiveness Research New statistical techniques (or old ones that are suddenly popular) New methodologic insights (confounding, selection bias, interaction, mediation..) The call for registration of observational research

New methodologic insights Largely based on causal graph theory = Direct Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), counterfactual theory & sufficient component causes theory Names associated: J Pearl, P Spirtes (see Google books)

Sequence Confounding Selection bias Effect Modification and Interaction Mediation

Confounding (1) Anecdote: 30 years ago at Harvard: “up to now everybody was wrong about confounding” – sentence literally repeated by new generation at Harvard School of Public Health

Confounding (2): classic ‘triangle’ Exposure CONFOUNDER Outcome Image copied from net – Univ of Nottingham Health Services Research Course

C (3) in words: Confounder is Determinant / risk factor of outcome Somehow associated with the exposure Should not be an intermediate between exposure and outcome That is what we have in STROBE (Box)

C (4) New theory Dissatisfaction with loose definition of ‘determinant of’ and ‘somehow associated’ All possibilities spelled out in causal graphs where arrows are no longer ‘descriptive’ but denote causes

C (5) Several possibilities Figures from internet book by Hernan & Robins

C (6) “Confounder” is anything that can remove confounding if stratified upon Here, U is unknown, L is known – if U strong cause of L, suffices to stratify for L – Fine point: underlies new ideas about propensity score

C (7) What’s the big deal? The new view can more easily solve situations that are difficult to conceptualize with the classic definition In particular variables that are affected by exposure or by outcome – they often seem to satisfy definition of ‘confounder’ (are associated with exposure and outcome, are not intermediates). Yet, controlling for them introduces confounding

C (8) Example: the M-bias - L is associated with A via U2 and L is associated with Y via U1. U1 and U2 are unkown - There is no confounding because there is no direct arrow from L to either A or Y - If you adjust for L, you make U1 and U2 associated via L, and within its levels L becomes a confounder, as it will be a cause of A via U2 and a cause of Y via U1

C (9) There are other instances… However, in most situations the classic triangle suffices, provided: –You do not adjust variables that are affected by exposure or by outcome Except for M-bias, which will usually be weak (goes over too many arrows), the extra condition can also be seen logically without DAGs: other consequences of an exposure or events that follow the outcome should not enter the analysis (they give selection bias) – you’d never do that in RCTs!

C (10) Solution in “Modern Epidemiology” 3rd ed Rothman, Greenland, Lash Teach both: –in Chapt 9 classic, with warnings –In Chapt 11 DAG-based Mind: New theory is a ‘must’ in case of time- dependent exposures that affect therapy time- dependently & vice versa; main example is estimation of treatment effect in observational follow-up studies of HIV+ persons (ample literature by Hernan, Robins – experience in Bern)

C (11) STROBE (my proposal + Charlie Poole Stick to ‘classic’ with additional warning about variables affected by exposure or by outcome & mention advanced theory in available books Add that problems may become intricate and necessitate DAG-based theory in case of time- dependent exposures and treatments that follow from the exposure level but also affect the exposure level Show the elementary DAGs?? Charlie Poole: if people base important part of their reasoning on DAGs: show the DAGs

Selection Bias (1) In STROBE, Box, predominantly explained in context of case-control studies, as ‘wrong’ choice of cases (associated with exposure) or of controls (associated with exposure). Good explanation in follow-up studies and demarcation with confounding was always difficult & led to many an epi quarrel

SB (2) Hernan et al. Epidemiology 2004 Selection bias = collider bias in DAG theory: –Either because of selection in study –Or because of unwarranted adjustment in analysis (see previous theory about confounding) Permits common explanation of selection bias in case-control and cohort studies and reasonably clear demarcation from confounding

SB (3) Figures from internet book Hernan & Robins Case-control: exposure affects disease, but also inclusion in study as either case or control Follow-up study: differential loss to follow-up. Exposure affects loss to follow-up differently in exposed and nonexposed A very different DAG from the confounder DAG

SB (4) Others…

SB (5) New terminological confusion… Proposal by Greenland to call all selection biases “Berksonian bias”, whether or not due to design or analysis Proposal by Hernan/Robins to call –Confounding: common causes of exposure and outcome –Selection bias: common effects of exposure and outcome Proposal by DAG aficionados to omit all names, and only reason in terms of DAGs – DAGs will give the picture of the diverse biases that might operate, and they need no names.

SB (6) For STROBE (My proposal + Charlie Poole) Mention paper Hernan, new definition: selection bias = collider bias Give practical examples of case-control and follow-up Expand explanation of selection bias due to design of study by DAGs? (To show difference with confounding DAG??) Charlie Poole: if people base important part of their reasoning on DAGs: show the DAGs

Effect Modification & Interaction (1) New insights in several publications by VanderWiele/Robins, based on sufficient- component causes & counterfactual theory (also explained in internet book Hernan/Robins) VanderWiele, Epidemiology 2007, 2008, 2009, 2009 In STROBE: proposal of fourfold table (for two dichotomous effects), so that interaction can be assessed on a risk difference scale as well as on a relative risk scale.

EM & I (2) New conceptual proposal: Difference between effect modification and interaction (VanderWeele, On the distinction…, Epidemiology 2009) Effect modification: when the interest is in one causal effect that may differ in two situations, e.g. in RCT: one treatment effect that may differ over the strata of say, old vs. young. Comparison of two strata, each with their own RD or RR.

EM & I (3) New conceptual proposals Interaction: when the interest is in two causal effects that may influence each other. E.g. in RCT: two potential treatments whose effects may differ over the several combinations. Comparison of four strata with four risks, in terms of RD or RR.

EM & I (4) In observational research Effect modification: there is only interest in the confounders of the one cause that is investigated. No interest in the effect of the variables that define the strata (old, young). Like in RCT with single therapy. Interaction; there is interest in the confounders of both causes, and both need proper adjustment or control.

EM & I (5) New analysis proposals Basic measure of effect modification and interaction remains risk difference, based on counterfactual models. Handy rules for derivation whether data analyzed by a RR model (logistic, etc) will show interaction on a RD scale: –If effect monotonic (no cause has preventive effect in some individuals); suffices that RR of interaction >=1 –If not, interaction RR must be >=2

EM & I (6) for STROBE (My proposals) Introduce difference between Effect Modification & Interaction Refer to refinements of calculation rules to estimate RD interaction on a RR scale. Note: VanderWeele has paper in press in which he will propose an amendment on STROBE to treat effect modification differently from interaction (different lay-out of tables etc).

Mediation (1) Classic theory “When an intervening variable is controlled in an analysis, the initial association between the independent and the dependent study variables disappears or is markedly reduced” (Susser, Causal reasoning in the health sciences, 1973, page 122) Inversely, if adjusting does not remove effect, there is a ‘direct effect’ not mediated by this intermediary variable

M (2) In STROBE we wrote: item 16 Inappropriate decisions may introduce bias, for example, by including variables that are in the causal pathway between exposure and disease (unless the aim is to assess how much of the effect is carried by the intermediary variable) We got early letter saying that we were totally wrong, quoting Cole & Hernan IJE 2002

M (3) Cole & Hernan 2002 You think it is… but it is…… Unmeasured confounder between intermediary and outcome

M (4) Immediate critique: Also in real world? Blakely IJE 2002 Confounding needs to be very strong Needs to go in opposite directions, which is often counterintuitive

M (5) All possibilities for residual effect after adjustment for intermediary. Le Cessie et al, unpublished

M (6) For STROBE Box about mediation?? – mainly stating that classic idea too simple, many reasons why a ‘pseudo-direct effect’ remains One reason being unmeasured confounding of relation between intermediary and outcome (which has as yet to be proven as a real life possibility)