In the absence of prior knowledge about population relations, investigators frequently employ a strategy that uses the data to help them decide whether to adjust for a variable. The authors compared the performance of several such strategies for fitting multiplicative Poisson regression models to cohort data: 1) the "change-in-estimate" strategy, in which a variable is controlled if the adjusted and unadjusted estimates differ by some important amount; 2) the "significance-test-of-the-covariate" strategy, in which a variable is controlled if its coefficient is significantly different from zero at some predetermined significance level; 3) the "significance-test-of-the-difference" strategy, which tests the difference between the adjusted and unadjusted exposure coefficients; 4) the "equivalence-test-of-the-difference" strategy, which significance-tests the equivalence of the adjusted and unadjusted exposure coefficients; and 5) a hybrid strategy that takes a weighted average of adjusted and unadjusted estimates. Data were generated from 8,100 population structures at each of several sample sizes. The performance of the different strategies was evaluated by computing bias, mean squared error, and coverage rates of confidence intervals. At least one variation of each strategy that was examined performed acceptably. The change-in-estimate and equivalence-test-of-the-difference strategies performed best when the cut-point for deciding whether crude and adjusted estimates differed by an important amount was set to a low value (10%). The significance test strategies performed best when the alpha level was set to much higher than conventional levels (0.20).

Quantitative bias analysis serves several objectives in epidemiological research. First, it provides a quantitative estimate of the direction, magnitude and uncertainty arising from systematic errors. Second, the acts of identifying sources of systematic error, writing down models to quantify them, assigning values to the bias parameters and interpreting the results combat the human tendency towards overconfidence in research results, syntheses and critiques and the inferences that rest upon them. Finally, by suggesting aspects that dominate uncertainty in a particular research result or topic area, bias analysis can guide efficient allocation of sparse research resources. The fundamental methods of bias analyses have been known for decades, and there have been calls for more widespread use for nearly as long. There was a time when some believed that bias analyses were rarely undertaken because the methods were not widely known and because automated computing tools were not readily available to implement the methods. These shortcomings have been largely resolved. We must, therefore, contemplate other barriers to implementation. One possibility is that practitioners avoid the analyses because they lack confidence in the practice of bias analysis. The purpose of this paper is therefore to describe what we view as good practices for applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiological data, directed towards those familiar with the methods. We focus on answering questions often posed to those of us who advocate incorporation of bias analysis methods into teaching and research. These include the following. When is bias analysis practical and productive? How does one select the biases that ought to be addressed? How does one select a method to model biases? How does one assign values to the parameters of a bias model? How does one present and interpret a bias analysis?. We hope that our guide to good practices for conducting and presenting bias analyses will encourage more widespread use of bias analysis to estimate the potential magnitude and direction of biases, as well as the uncertainty in estimates potentially influenced by the biases.

Non-differentiality of exposure misclassification does not justify claims that the observed estimate must be an underestimate; further conditions must hold to get bias towards the null, and even when they do hold the observed estimate may by chance be an overestimate.

No abstract

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics continues to pose a serious threat to human and animal health. Given the considerable spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the distribution of resistance and the factors that affect its evolution, dissemination and persistence, we argue that antibiotic resistance must be viewed as an ecological problem. A fundamental difficulty in assessing the causal relationship between antibiotic use and resistance is the confounding influence of geography: the co-localization of resistant bacterial species with antibiotic use does not necessarily imply causation and could represent the presence of environmental conditions and factors that have independently contributed to the occurrence of resistance. Here, we show how landscape ecology, which links the biotic and abiotic factors of an ecosystem, might help to untangle the complexity of antibiotic resistance and improve the interpretation of ecological studies.

We prospectively assessed the relations between various characteristics of day care and lower respiratory illness (LRI) in a cohort of 1,268 Minnesotan children, born between October 1989 and January 1991 and followed to 2 yr of age. Information on LRI was abstracted from medical records and data on day care use, respiratory symptoms, and physician diagnosis of asthma were obtained from questionnaires. We identified a subgroup of 60 children with recurrent wheezing illnesses. The LRI rate ratio for day care attendance was 2.0 (95% confidence interval = 1.7, 2.2). Rate ratios were similar regardless of the day care setting, number of other children present, or the number of hours spent in day care. A parental history of asthma further increased the rate ratio for day care attendance. Day care attendance was associated with a threefold risk of having recurrent wheezing illnesses. We conclude that day care attendance is an important risk factor for LRI in young children, and for recurrent wheezing illnesses.

No abstract

Overall, the potential impact of EME on error in epidemiologic study results appears to be ignored frequently in practice.