Epidemiological darkness Birger Svihus, professor of nutrition.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Deriving Biological Inferences From Epidemiologic Studies.
Advertisements

Causality Causality Hill’s Criteria Cross sectional studies.
Food Standards Agency Nutrition Research Dr Andrew Wadge Chief Scientist Food Standards Agency June 2008.
Case-Control Studies (Retrospective Studies). What is a cohort?
Reading the Dental Literature
Introduction to Cancer Epidemiology Epidemiology and Molecular Pathology of Cancer: Bootcamp course Tuesday, 3 January 2012.
BIAS AND CONFOUNDING Nigel Paneth. HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION AND ERRORS IN RESEARCH All analytic studies must begin with a clearly formulated hypothesis.
The burden of proof Causality FETP India. Competency to be gained from this lecture Understand and use Doll and Hill causality criteria.
Chance, bias and confounding
Correlation AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Population Health for Health Professionals. Module 2 Epidemiology The Basic Science of Public Health.
Epidemiology Kept Simple
Breast Cancer Policies: A Systems Approach Palak Raval-Nelson, MPH, PhD (Candidate)
A case study Investigation: What causes colon cancer? What is the effect of diet on colon cancer?
Environmental Health III. Epidemiology Shu-Chi Chang, Ph.D., P.E., P.A. Assistant Professor 1 and Division Chief 2 1 Department of Environmental Engineering.
Cohort Studies Hanna E. Bloomfield, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Associate Chief of Staff, Research Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
COHORT STUDY DR. A.A.TRIVEDI (M.D., D.I.H.) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
PROSTATE CANCER AND SMOKING Kym Hickey MBBS, MPH Repatriation Medical Authority, Australia.
Chapter 5 Research Methods in the Study of Abnormal Behavior Ch 5.
Background Information : Projected prevalence of arthritis is expected to increase from 2.9 million to 6.5 million Canadians, a rise of 124% (Badley.
Research Design Interactive Presentation Interactive Presentation
Lecture 8 Objective 20. Describe the elements of design of observational studies: case reports/series.
Epidemiologic Study Designs Nancy D. Barker, MS. Epidemiologic Study Design The plan of an empirical investigation to assess an E – D relationship. Exposure.
1 Causation in Epidemiological Studies Dr. Birgit Greiner Senior Lecturer.
1 10. Causality and Correlation ECON 251 Research Methods.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 14 Screening and Prevention of Illnesses and Injuries: Research Methods.
Epidemiology The Basics Only… Adapted with permission from a class presentation developed by Dr. Charles Lynch – University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Evidence-Based Medicine 3 More Knowledge and Skills for Critical Reading Karen E. Schetzina, MD, MPH.
Biostatistics Case Studies Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 5: Analysis Issues in Large Observational Studies.
CHP400: Community Health Program- lI Research Methodology STUDY DESIGNS Observational / Analytical Studies Case Control Studies Present: Disease Past:
ECON ECON Health Economic Policy Lab Kem P. Krueger, Pharm.D., Ph.D. Anne Alexander, M.S., Ph.D. University of Wyoming.
An Overview of Nutrition
 Is there a comparison? ◦ Are the groups really comparable?  Are the differences being reported real? ◦ Are they worth reporting? ◦ How much confidence.
The Impact of Epidemiology in Public Health Robert Hirokawa Epidemiologist, Science and Research Group HHI / TSP, Hawaii Department of Health.
Literature searching & critical appraisal Chihaya Koriyama August 15, 2011 (Lecture 2)
Lecture 7 Objective 18. Describe the elements of design of observational studies: case ‑ control studies (retrospective studies). Discuss the advantages.
Chapter 2 Nature of the evidence. Chapter overview Introduction What is epidemiology? Measuring physical activity and fitness in population studies Laboratory-based.
Research Methods in Health Psychology Chapter 2. Science Science is not a thing in and of itself. It is a set of methods used to understand natural phenomena.
Reading Health Research Critically The first four guides for reading a clinical journal apply to any article, consider: the title the author the summary.
The Impact of Epidemiology in Public Health Robert Hirokawa, DrPH Epidemiologist, Science and Research Group HHI / TSP, Hawaii Department of Health.
Guidelines for Critically Reading the Medical Literature John L. Clayton, MPH.
In the name of God. EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COLORECTAL CANCER Mohsen Janghorbani Professor of Epidemiology Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
Case-Control Studies Abdualziz BinSaeed. Case-Control Studies Type of analytic study Unit of observation and analysis: Individual (not group)
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
SEARO – CSR Training on Outbreak Investigation Selecting Comparison Groups.
Design of Clinical Research Studies ASAP Session by: Robert McCarter, ScD Dir. Biostatistics and Informatics, CNMC
Headlines Introduction General concepts
© 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 1 What Is Nutrition?
Pskov Youth Reproductive Health Project David Buchanan September 13, 2010.
1 Study Design Imre Janszky Faculty of Medicine, ISM NTNU.
IADSA Scientific Forum 2009 The scientific substantiation of health claims David P. Richardson Scientific Adviser to UK Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
© 2010 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC
Present: Disease Past: Exposure
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Causation Learning Objectives
Lesson Using Studies Wisely.
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Chapter 4: Designing Studies
Prepared by staff in Prevention and Cancer Control.
Presentation transcript:

Epidemiological darkness Birger Svihus, professor of nutrition

The experiment - the gold standard of science Randomisation –Distributes error/other contributing factors evenly among control groups and intervention groups Intervention –Gives the scientist control over the factor studied Blinding –Reduces bias in data collection

Bertrand Russell ( ) ”The word ’cause’ is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the scientific vocabulary desirable.” ( Ward, Medical Health Care and Philosophy 12, 333, 2009)

John Snow, English physician ( ) Established a link between water and cholera by epidemiological studies (Freedman, Statistical Science 3, 243, 1999)

Major observational methods used in epidemiology Correlation studies –A large number of data are screened to search for associations between a response (e.g. obesity) and a factor (e.g. amount of a food) Cohort studies –Healthy persons are grouped according to factors of interest, and the incidence of a response is registered over time Case-control studies –Persons with a health problem (cases) are studied in regards to potential risk factors, and the odds ratio is compared with a control group without the health problem

Major problems in observational epidemiological studies Confounding –Other, unknown factors, can be underlying causes for both the factor and the response, e.g. the correlation between icecream consumption and drowning incidence Reverse causation –A factor that is correlated to a response may not be the cause for the response, but rather vice versa, e.g. the correlation between number of firefighters and the gravity of a fire Bias in data collection

Sir Ronald A. Fisher on epidemiology (Breslow, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 433, 1996) ”Statistics has gained a place of modest usefulness in medical research. It can deserve and retain this only by complete impartiality, which is not unattainable by rational minds … I do not relish the prospect of this science being now discredited by a catastrophic and conspicious howler. For it will be as clear in retrospect, as it is now in logic, that the data so far do not warrant the conclusions based on them.” (1957, on smoking and lung cancer)

Schünemann et al., Journal of Epidemiology, Community and Health 65, 392, 2011)

Probable These criteria are for evidence strong enough to support a judgement of a probable causal relationship. Evidence from at least two independent cohort studies, or at least five case-control studies. No substantial unexplained heterogeneity between or within study types in the presence or absence of an association, or direction of effect. Good quality studies to exclude with confidence the possibility that the observed association results from random or systematic error, including confounding, measurement error, and selection bias. Evidence for biological plausibility. Convincing These criteria are for evidence strong enough to support a judgement of a convincing causal relationship. Evidence from more than one study type. Evidence from at least two independent cohort studies. No substantial unexplained heterogeneity within or between study types or in different populations. Good quality studies to exclude with confidence the possibility of random or systematic error. Presence of a plausible biological gradient in the association. Strong and plausible experimental evidence, either from human studies or relevant animal models. World Cancer Fund criteria for causation from epidemiological data (

“What is required is much more than the application of a list of criteria. Instead, one must apply thorough criticism, with the goal of obtaining a quantified evaluation of the total error that afflicts the study. This type of assessment is not one that can be done easily by someone who lacks the skills and training of a scientist familiar with the subject matter and the scientific methods that were employed. Neither can it be applied readily by judges in court, nor by scientists who either lack the requisite knowledge or who do not take the time to penetrate the work.” Review paper by Rothman and Greenland (American Journal of Public Health s1, s144, 2011)

A hierarcical list of criteria to use for dietary recommendations. The food should: 1. provide enough nutrients 2. not provide too much energy and thus cause obesity 3. have a balanced content and quality of carbohydrates and fat to hinder diabetes 2 and/or atherosclerosis 4. not contain too much of ingredients thought to be carcinogenic, or too little of ingredients thought to protect against cancer

Review paper by Boffetta (Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 50:13–16, 2010) “In conclusion, cancer epidemiology is, to a large extent, the determination of small effects and weak associations, and poses major challenges that are easier to overcome in certain areas (e.g., genetic epidemiology) than in others (e.g., environmental or nutritional epidemiology). Identifying the causal nature of a weak association is not impossible, but requires large, well-planned, and well-conducted studies and supporting evidence from molecular and experimental studies.”

New dietary recommendations from the government Eat less red meat

The example of red meat Rich in essential nutrients

The example of red meat Rich in essential nutrients Low in energy which protects against obesity

The example of red meat Rich in essential nutrients Low in energy which protects against obesity Low cho and fat which protects against diabetes/ atherosclerosis

The example of red meat Rich in essential nutrients Low in energy which protects against obesity Low cho and fat which protects against diabetes/ atherosclerosis Associated with colon cancer

The risk for colorectal cancer due to red meat (Cross et al., PloS Medicine 4, e325, 2007) The risk of developing cancer was 24 % higher for persons eating 170 gram red meat per day compared with those eating 30 gram per day In Norway, the incidence of colorectal cancer is around 80 per Thus, if the association is causal, cancer incidence would increase to 100 per if meat consumption in Norway was 30 gram and increased to 170 gram (it is currently around 80 gram per day)

Review paper on diet and cancer by Key et al. (The Lancet 360, 861, 2002) “Despite extensive research during the last 30 years, few specific dietary determinants of cancer risk have been established, even for cancers such as colorectal cancer for which most researchers agree that diet probably has important effects.”