Sources of bias in studies of time to pregnancy
- 15 March 1994
- journal article
- epidemiologic method
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 13 (5-7) , 671-681
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780130528
Abstract
Among sexually active couples who are not using contraception, there is considerable heterogeneity in fertility, even among those who eventually achieve pregnancy. The number of menstrual cycles required, measured in integer time, is greatly overdispersed compared to the geometric, suggesting that the per cycle probability of conception varies considerably among couples. Some of this variability may reflect the effect of reproductive toxicants on fertility, and studies of time to pregnancy can be useful in identifying such toxic effects. We describe models for analysing time‐to‐pregnancy data, and discuss seven sources of bias that can lead the reproductive epidemiologist to spurious conclusions. Certain analytic and design strategies can help protect against some of the pitfalls.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pitfalls inherent in retrospective time‐to‐event studies: The example of time to pregnancyStatistics in Medicine, 1993
- Estimating Fecundability from Data on Waiting Times to First ConceptionJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1990
- Time to pregnancy—a model and its applicationJournal of Biosocial Science, 1990
- Feasibility of studying subfertility using retrospective self reports.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1989
- Inference Based on Retrospective Ascertainment: An Analysis of the Data on Transfusion-Related AIDSJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1989
- CAFFEINATED BEVERAGES AND DECREASED FERTILITYThe Lancet, 1988
- Incidence of Early Loss of PregnancyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Biases in Research on Reproduction and Women's WorkInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1985
- The Distribution of Births in Human PopulationsPopulation Studies, 1958