Intro to Biostatistics Flashcards
Types of Study Design
Descriptive Study: Description of what is happening in a population.
Analytic Study: Quantification of the relationship between two factors (i.e., effect of intervention on an outcome).
Experimental Study: Manipulation of the exposure via randomization to intervention or exposure.
Observational Study: Measurement of exposure to a matched group
Types of Observational vs. Experimental Studies
Observational: Ecological Cross-sectional Cohort Case-control
Experimental:
Randomized control trial
Community trial
Ecological Study
Units of analysis are populations or groups of people and not individuals.
Focuses on the comparison of groups rather than individuals
Ecological Study: Advantages
Low cost
Convenient
Not all measurements can be made on individuals
Ecologic effects are main interest (at the population level)
Simplicity of analyses and presentation
Hypotheses generating for future research
Ecological Study: Disadvantages
Prone to “ecological fallacy”:
Assumptions that relationships observed for groups hold true for individuals.
Such inferences made using group-level data may not always be correct at the individual level.
Cannot adjust for confounds due to lack of comparability (due to lack of data on all potential covariates)
A covariate is a secondary variable that can affect the relationship between the dependent variable and other independent variables of primary interest.
Missing data
Cross-Sectional Study
Surveys exposures and disease status at a single point in time (a cross-section of the population)
Measures prevalence, not incidence of disease
Suitable for studying conditions that are relatively frequent with long duration of expression (nonfatal, chronic conditions)
Not suitable for studying rare or highly fatal diseases or a disease with short duration of expression
Example: community surveys
Incidence vs Prevalence
Incidence: rate of new cases
Prevalence: actual number of cases alive at one point in time
Cross-Sectional Study: Advantages
Low cost
Convenient
Less time-consuming than other designs
Allows study of several diseases/exposures
Provides estimates for population burden, health planning and priority setting of health problems
Cross-Sectional Study: Disadvantages
Weaker design because it measures prevalence, not incidence of disease. (Prevalent cases are survivors).
Temporal sequence of exposure and effect is difficult to determine.
Difficult to determine when disease occurred.
Rare diseases and quickly emerging diseases are difficult to study.
Cohort Study
One or more cohorts (i.e., samples) are followed prospectively.
Prospective studies follow a condition, concern or disease into the future to determine which risk factors are associated with it
Following and measuring things from people over time for certain conditions, concerns, or diseases to determine risk factors
Cohort Study: Advantages
Exposure status determined before disease detection.
Study subjects selected before disease detection.
Study subjects can be matched to help control for confounding variables.
Ability to study several outcomes for each exposure
Cohort Study: Disadvantages
Expensive
Time-consuming
Not suitable for rare diseases or diseases with long latency
No randomization (subject characteristics imbalances in patient characteristics could exist
Loss to follow-up
Case-Control Study
Compares exposures in disease cases versus healthy controls from same population
At one point in time, but looking back (retrospective)
Case-Control Study: Advantages
Low cost
Less time-consuming than other designs
Most feasible design for disease outcomes that are rare
Case-Control Study: Disadvantages
Not a suitable design when disease outcome for a specific exposure is not known at start of study.
Exposure measurements taken after disease occurrence (retrospective data).
Disease status can influence selection of study subjects
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Experimental comparison study where participants are randomized to experimental or control groups.
Best for studying the effect of an treatment/test.
Gold standard for epidemiological research
Randomized Control Trials (RCTs)
Primary purpose
Reduces selection bias in the allocation of intervention.
Each participant has an equal chance of being in experimental or control group.
Secondary purpose
If large sample size, the experimental and control groups should have similar baseline characteristics.
Helps to control for known and unknown factors.
Advantages of RCTs
Randomization balances distribution of confounders.
Blinding of participants and researchers reduces bias in assessment of outcomes.
Detailed information collected at baseline and follow-up periods.
Populations of participating individuals are clearly identified
Results can be analyzed with well-known statistical tools
Disadvantages of RCTs
Expensive and time-consuming
Volunteer bias
Large sample size may be required
Participant exclusion may limit generalizability
Adherence may be an issue
Sponsor or funding source may be an issue
Ethical concerns
Community Trial
Experimental studies with whole communities (e.g., cities, states) as experimental units.
The intervention is assigned to all members in each of a number of communities.
Community trials follow the same procedures as RCTs (eligibility criteria, informed consent, randomization, follow-up measures).
Blinding and double blinding are not generally used in community trials
Community Trial Advantages
Randomization balances distribution of confounders.
Detailed information collected at baseline and follow-up periods.
Results can be analyzed with well-known statistical tools.
Directly estimate the impact of change in behavior or modifiable exposure on the incidence of disease.
Community Trial Disadvantages
Expensive, time-consuming
Difficulty controlling study entrance study, intervention delivery, and monitoring of outcomes.
Fewer study units are capable of being randomized, which affects comparability.
Affected by population dynamics, secular trends, and nonintervention influences.
Systematic and Random Error
Errors can be systematic (differential ) or random (non-differential)
Systematic error: Use of an invalid outcome measure that is consistently wrong in a particular direction (e.g., faulty measuring instrument)
Random error: Use of an invalid outcome measure that has no apparent connection to any other measurement or variable, generally regarded as due to chance
Use of the term “Bias” should be reserved for systematic (differential) error
Selection vs. Detection Bias
Selection bias: systematic error in the ascertainment of study subjects; not random
Can lead to systematic differences between baseline characteristics of the groups that are compared.
Detection bias: systematic differences between groups in how outcomes are determined.
A potential artifact caused by use of a particular diagnostic technique or type of equipment.