1 / 18

Leicester Warwick Medical School

Leicester Warwick Medical School. Health and Disease in Populations Revision Paul Burton. What you don’t need to know!!!!!. Detailed knowledge of how to fill in a death certificate Detailed knowledge of census questions

gefjun
Télécharger la présentation

Leicester Warwick Medical School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Leicester Warwick Medical School Health and Disease in PopulationsRevision Paul Burton

  2. What you don’t need to know!!!!! • Detailed knowledge of how to fill in a death certificate • Detailed knowledge of census questions • Detailed knowledge of exactly what is in/not in specific information sources • Knowledge of web site addresses • Wording of Helsinki declaration, Hippocratic Oath • Mathematical formulae for error factors

  3. Exposed Time Unexposed Cohort Studies Count events and pyrs Count events and pyrs

  4. A worked example • 1,000 children followed from birth to age 5 yrs • 300 at least one parent smoked in the home • 700 neither parent smoked in the home • p-ySMOKE = 300  5 pyr = 1,500 p-y • p-yNON-SMOKE = 700  5 pyr = 3,500 p-y

  5. A worked example • Smoke exposed, 75 diagnosed asthma • Smoke unexposed, 105 diagnosed asthma • IRSMOKERS = 75/1,500 = 50 per 1,000 p-y • IRNON-SMOKERS = 105/3,500 = 30 per 1,000 p-y

  6. A worked example • IRR = 1.667 • e.f. = • e.f. = 1.35 • 95% CI: 1.667÷1.35 to 1.6671.35 • i.e. 1.23 to 2.25

  7. Case-control Studies Exposed? Case Time Non-Case (Control) Exposed?

  8. Analysis 95%CI: OR  e.f., OR  e.f.

  9. Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (CJD) and occupation • Odds ratio = (9×104)/(3×13) = 24 • 95% CI: 24÷4.29, 24×4.29 = (5.59, 103.0)

  10. How many controls? • Unlike an IRR, the precision of an OR is affected by the number of healthy people (x and z): • So, it is worth increasing the number of controls - up to a point (typically up to 4-6 times as many controls as there are cases)

  11. Multiple levels of exposure

  12. Retrospective v prospective? • Confusing terminology: two different issues • (1) Does the analysis look forwards or backwards? • (2) Are the data collected as and when they occur (i.e. prospectively) or from historical review - questionnaire, case-notes or other health records – (i.e. retrospectively). • Cohort analysis always looks forwards in time: • Given exposure status at baseline, how many events occurred over time in how many person years and what is the incidence rate ratio? • Simple case-control analysis is usually expressed as being backwards in time: • Given case-control status now, what is the ratio of the odds of exposure at baseline?

  13. Retrospective v prospective? • Confusing terminology: two different issues • (1) Does the analysis look forwards or backwards? • (2) Are the data collected as and when they occur (i.e. prospectively) or from historical review - questionnaire, case-notes or other health records – (i.e. retrospectively). • Conventional cohort study: prospective • Historical cohort study: retrospective • Conventional case-control study: retrospective

  14. Comparison of cohort andcase-control studies

  15. Statistical inference on a rate ratio • Population 1: d1 cases in P1 person years • Population 2: d2 cases in P2 person years • Rate ratio = d1/P1  d2/P2

  16. An example • 80 deaths in 8,000 pyrs (male) • 50 deaths in 10,000 pyrs (female) • RateM= 10 per 1,000 p-y; RateF= 5 per 1,000 p-y • Observed rate ratio (M/F) = 2.0 • 95% CI: [2÷1.43 to 2×1.43] = [1.40 to 2.86]  • Best guess for true rate ratio=2.0, and 95% certain that true rate ratio lies between 1.40 and 2.86. This range does not include 1.00 so able to reject hypothesis of equality (p<0.05)

  17. Statistical inference on an SMR • Observe O deaths • Expect E deaths (based on age-specific rates in the standard population and age-specific population sizes in the test population)  • SMR = (O/E)  100

  18. For example • On basis of age specific rates in standard population expect 50 deaths in test population. Observe 60. (O=60, E=50)   • SMR = (60/50)×100 = 120 • 95% CI for SMR = 120 ÷/× 1.29 = 93 to 155. CI includes 100 so data consistent with equality of death rate in test and standard populations (p>0.05). But also consistent with e.g. a50% excess so certainly doesn’t prove equality.

More Related