Avoiding bias from aggregate measures of exposure
- 1 May 2007
- journal article
- theory and-methods
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Vol. 61 (5) , 461-463
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.050203
Abstract
Background: Sometimes in descriptive epidemiology or in the evaluation of a health intervention policy change, proportions exposed to a risk factor or to an intervention are used as explanatory variables in log-linear regressions for disease incidence or mortality. Aim: To demonstrate how estimates from such models can be substantially inaccurate as estimates of the effect of the risk factor or intervention at individual level. To show how the individual level effect can be correctly estimated by excess relative risk models. Methods: The problem and solution are demonstrated using data on prostate-specific antigen testing and prostate cancer incidence.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Population exposure to ultraviolet radiation in Finland 1920–1995: Exposure trends and a time-series analysis of exposure and cutaneous melanoma incidenceEnvironmental Research, 2006
- Biases in ecological studies: utility of including within-area distribution of confoundersStatistics in Medicine, 2000
- Breast Cancer Mortality between 1950 and 1987 after Exposure to Fractionated Moderate-Dose-Rate Ionizing Radiation in the Canadian Fluoroscopy Cohort Study and a Comparison with Breast Cancer Mortality in the Atomic Bomb Survivors StudyRadiation Research, 1996
- Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.1987