2-Epidemiological studies
10 likes2,493 views
The document discusses different types of epidemiological studies, including descriptive studies like case reports and case series that focus on person, place and time to create hypotheses. Analytical studies like case-control and cohort studies are used to test hypotheses by being either observational or interventional. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for comparing new interventions. Observational analytical studies include cross-sectional, cohort and case-control designs, while interventional analytical studies are clinical trials. The appropriate study design depends on the research goals and objectives.
2-Epidemiological studies
- 1. Epidemiological Studies By Mehdi Ehtesham Epidemiologist, Avicenna Research Consulting, London, UK
- 2. Aim of a studies •To determine distribution of disease/condition Descriptive Studies •To test a hypothesis Analytical Studies
- 3. Descriptive studies Focus on person, place and time. Create Hypothesis Case reports and case series are examples of descriptive studies.
- 4. Analytical studies Test a hypothesis which has already been suggested Observational or interventional Case-control, Cohort and Clinical Trials are examples of analytical studies.
- 5. Observational Descriptive Case Report Case Series Cross- Sectional Analytical Ecologic Case-Control Cohort Interventional Analytical Clinical Trial Community Trial Experimental Trial
- 6. The Hierarchy of Evidence 1. Randomised controlled trials 2. Cohort studies 3. Case-control studies 4. Crosssectional surveys 5. Casereports 6. Expert opinion
- 7. Case Reports and Case Series •Describe the occurrence of new disease entities. •Describe the outcome of patients with specific diseases. •Allows for the description of outcomes associated with rare diseases. •Formulate hypotheses
- 8. Limitations of Case Report & Case Series •Impossible to determine disease frequency. •Cannot establish causality between exposures or risk factors and disease or outcome.
- 9. Case reports Documentation: In 1961, a published case report of a 40 year-old woman who developed pulmonary embolism after beginning use of oral contraceptive
- 10. Case Series Create hypothesis In Los Angeles, five young homosexuals men, previously healthy, were diagnosed with pneumocyst cariini pneumonia in a 6-month period (80-81)
- 11. •Cross-Sectional Studies measure existing disease and current exposure levels. •They provide some indication of the relationship between the disease and exposure or non-exposure •Mostly prevalence studies/surveys Cross-sectional studies
- 12. •Good design for hypothesis generation •Can estimate exposure proportions in the population • Can study multiple exposures or multiple outcomes •Relatively easy, quick and inexpensive •Best suited to study permanent factors (breed, sex, blood-type) •Often good first step for new study issue Cross Sectional Studies (Advantages)
- 13. • Impractical for rare diseases • Problems with temporal sequence of data • Not a useful type of study for establishing causal relationships • Confounding is difficult to control • hard to decide when disease was actually acquired • miss diseases still in latent period • recall of previous exposure may be faulty Cross Sectional Studies (Disadvantages)
- 16. Steps Hypothesis definition(Is there association or NOT!) Selection of cases and controls(mostly from hospital) Match case and control (age, gender or… ) Exposure measurement(mostly with questionnaire) Analysis (Statistic software, such as SPSS, STATA or EPI info) Interpretation
- 17. Special features of case control study Studying diseases with long latency Efficient in time and cost Suitable for rare diseases Wide range of potential exposure
- 18. Selection of cases Sources of cases Population Hospital Registry Are the cases representative of total population or a fraction of it?
- 19. case definition Strict diagnostic criteria Homogenous or heterogeneous? Where, when and whom? Hospital versus population Incident versus prevalent (survival factors)
- 20. Types of controls Sources of controls Population case Population control Hospital case Hospital control Hospital controls: Patients with mixture of diagnosis are usually used as controls Dead controls Similar disease as controls Friend or neighbor controls Population controls
- 21. Selection of matched controls Increased power efficiency Matching variable can not be investigated as a possible risk factor Overmatching (Many variables, wrong variable) Difficult to find suitable matches Frequency and individual matching Matched design Matched analysis
- 22. Measures of exposure Intensity (level or frequency) Duration Dose Average exposure Time since first Time since last
- 25. Steps Hypothesis definition Selection of exposed and unexposed Follow-up and outcome measurement Analysis & interpretation
- 26. Selection of the Exposed Population •Sample of the general population: Geographically area, special age groups, birth cohorts •A group that is easy to identify: Nurses health study •Special population (often occupational epidemiology): Rare and special exposure
- 27. Selection of the Comparison Population • Internal Control Group – Exposed and non-exposed in the same Study population (Framingham study, Nurses health study) • Minimise the differences between exposed and non-exposed • External Control Group – Chosen in another group, another cohort (Occupational epidemiology: Asbestosis vs. cotton workers) • The General Population
- 28. You follow the participants to define: The occurrence of outcome Loss to Follow-up Define the outcome Define “loss”
- 29. Cohort Exposure Outcome Exposure Outcome Exposure Outcome Present Time
- 30. Prospective vs. retrospective Cohort Studies Prospective Cohort Studies – Time consuming, expensive – More valid information on exposure – Measurements on potential confounders Retrospective Cohort Studies – Quick, cheap – Appropriate to examine outcome with long latency periods – Difficult to obtain information of exposure – Risk of confounding
- 31. Ecological Studies Use populations as units of analysis Correlation (multiple populations) Comparison (two populations) Populations can be countries, provinces, counties, schools, etc.
- 32. Ecological study– focus on characteristics of population groups rather than their individual members. The unit of analysis not an individual but a group: defined by time (calendar period, birth cohort) geography (country, province, or city) social-demographic characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, religion, or socio-economic status) Provide the first look of relations for hypothesis generation
- 33. Ecologic studies Cannot link factor and a disease at the level of the individual Other factors may account for differences in disease rates Relationships which occur when groups used as units of analysis may not exist when individuals are used as units of analysis
- 34. Daily mortality vs. outside temperature
- 35. 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1600140012001000800600 Japan Denmark New Zealand Fed. Repub. Of Germany France Canada Israel Switzerland USA Australia Yugoslavia Hong Kong Romania Finland Poland Spain Hungary Norway UK Italy Sweden IncidenceRatioper100,000Women Per Capita Supply of Fat Calories Correlation between dietary fat intake and breast cancer by country. Prentice RL, Kakar F, Hursting S, et al: Aspects of the rationale for the Women’s Health Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 80:802-814, 1988.)
- 36. ECOLOGICAL FALLACY “Ecological fallacy”, “ecological bias”, “cross-level bias” “Failure of ecological level associations to properly reflect individual level associations”
- 37. Randomized Clinical Trials Basic Trial Design Population Sample Treatment Dx No Dx Control Dx No DxPlacebo Randomization
- 38. Steps in a randomized controlled trial 1. Select participants 2. Measure baseline variables 3. Randomize Eliminates baseline confounding Types (simple, stratified, block)
- 39. Steps in a randomized controlled trial 4. Blinding the intervention As important as randomization 5. Follow subjects 6. Measure outcome Clinically important measures Adverse events
- 40. Samples Randomization is the key Allocation is at random, not sampling Simple versus systematic Randomization
- 41. considerations Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria (impact on generalisability) Ethical considerations Technical considerations
- 42. Title and Abstract How participants were allocated to interventions (eg, “random allocation,” “randomized,” or “randomly assigned”).
- 43. Methods Eligibility criteria for participants settings and locations Precise details of the interventions Specific objectives and hypotheses Clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures methods used to enhance the quality of measurements How sample size was determined
- 44. Also … Method of Randomization Method of Concealment Method of Implementation Level of blinding Participant flow
- 45. Select study design to match the research goals DesignObjective Case series or report Description of disease Cross-Sectional study Cross-Sectional studyEvaluate a new diagnostic test Cohort studyDescribe prognosis Cohort study Determine cause-effect Case-Control study Randomized Clinical TrialCompare new interventions Systematic reviewSummarize literature