the odds of illness are mathematically equivalent to the risk of illness
Front
false
Back
A. a study must be valid before its results can be generalized
Front
true
Back
what are the key characteristics of a confounding variable?
Front
a confounder is associated with the exposure in the source population that produced the cases and an independent cause or predictor of the outcome under study. the latter means that it is associated with the disease among both exposed and unexposed individuals. in addition, a confounder cannot be an intermediate step in the causal pathway between the exposure and disease
Back
A. Confounding
Front
Is a mixing of effects between an exposure, an outcome, and a third extraneous variable that is termed the confounder. Confounding distorts the crude relationship between an exposure and outcome because of the relationships between the confounder and the exposure, and the confounder and the disease
Back
case identification is generally more difficult than control identification in case-control studies
Front
false
Back
B. Healthy worker effect
Front
occurs in occupational studies when disease and death rates in a working population are compared with those among the general population.
Back
Selection bias is most likely to occur in:
A. case-control studies
B. retrospective cohort studies
C. experimental studies
D. both retrospective and case-control
E. both retrospective and experimental
Front
D
Back
describe the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of comparison groups used in cohort studies. which one comes closes to the counterfactual ideal?
Front
-Internal comparison: comes closest to the counterfactual ideal because it comes from the same source population as the exposed group and so is most comparable. However, they are often hard to identify
-General population: it is stable and easy to obtain. includes a lack of comparability to the exposed group and lack of information on confounders.
-comparison cohort: least preferable option. although it may be comparable to the exposed group, results from such a study are hard to interpret because the comparison cohort often has other exposures.
Back
describe the situations in which it is desirable to conduct a case-control study
Front
-when the exposure data is difficult or expensive to obtain, when the disease is rare, when the disease has a long induction and latent period, when little is known about the disease, and when the underlying population is dynamic.
Back
C. selection bias
Front
ensure that selection of cases and controls is independent of exposure (in case-control study)and that selection of exposed and unexposed groups is independent of outcome (in retrospective cohort) and obtain high follow-up and participation rates (all studies)
Back
cohort studies are the most sensible design for examining many exposures in relation to a single disease
Front
false
Back
A. TROHOC and TROHOC fallacy
Front
TROHOC is the word cohort spelled backwards. Some epidemiologists use TROHOC as a disparaging term for case-control studies because they believe that case-control studies are inferior to cohort studies.
TROHOC fallacy means that it is incorrect to consider the logic of a case-control study backwards, because the key comparison is identical to that of a cohort study.
Back
describe three methods for controlling confounding in the study design, and give one advantage and one disadvantage for each method.
Front
-randomization: act of assigning or ordering using a random process. it controls both known and unknown confounders, if sample size is large enough. it can only be used in experimental studies
-Matching: process of making the distribution of confounders identical in the compared groups while selecting the study subjects. good for controlling for confounding by complex nominal variables and for controlling confounding in small studies. It is difficult and expensive finding appropriate matches
-restriction: means that the investigator limits admission into a study to individuals who fall within a specific category or categories of a confounder. simple and relatively low expense. but difficult in identifying a sufficient number of subjects and limiting generalizability of the study
Back
how is person-time calculated within the context of a cohort study?
Front
person-time is accrued for each individual in a cohort study. it begins when the follow-up period of the study begins. it ends when one of the following occurs: the individual develops the outcome under study, dies, is lost, or the follow-up period for the study ends
Back
D. using an inaccurate case definition increases the likelihood of non-differential misclassification of the disease
Front
false
Back
C. positive and negative confounding
Front
positive confounding means that true crude association is exaggerated. away from the null
negative confounding means that the true crude association is underestimated. toward the null
Back
the purpose of a control group in a case-control study is to provide information on the disease distribution in the source population that produced the cases
Front
false
Back
State the different ways that each of the following biases can be minimized:
Front
Back
B. odds ratio
Front
-The odds of being a case among the exposed compared with the odds of being a case among the nonexposed
-the odds of being exposed among the cases compared with the odds of being exposed among the controls
Back
a case-control study is the most efficient design for studying the health effects of rare exposures, while a cohort study is the most efficient design for studying the risk factors for rare diseases
Front
false
Back
E. including a large sample size reduces self-selection bias
Front
false
Back
the control group in a case-control study should never include individuals who have the cases's disease
Front
false
Back
B. Recall Bias
Front
mask study subjects to the study hypothesis, use diseased controls if conducting a case-control study, and carefully design an interview instrument
Back
Briefly define each of the following terms:
Front
Back
State whether or not a cohort study is best suited for each of the following scenarios:
A. when little is known about a rare exposure
B. when little is known about a rare disease
C. when the study population will be difficult to follow up
D. when you want to learn about multiple effects of an exposure
Front
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. Yes
Back
D. misclassification
Front
use the most accurate source of information, and use sensitive and specific criteria to define the exposure and disease
Back
C. control selection bias
Front
is a type of selection bias that occurs in case-control studies when the controls do not accurately represent the exposure distribution in the source population that produced the cases. it occurs when different criteria were used to to select cases and controls
Back
indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
briefly define each of the following terms:
Front
false
Back
A. Interviewer bias
Front
Mask interviewers to the study hypothesis and to the disease or exposure status of the study subjects, and carefully design the interview instrument
Back
describe one advantage and one disadvantage of using population controls in a case-control study
Front
advantages: they usually come from the same source population as the cases and so they are likely to be comparable.
disadvantages: they are time-consuming and expensive to identify, they are usually not as cooperative as hospital controls, and their recall of prior exposures may not be as accurate as that of cases
Back
Recall bias is most likely to occur in:
A. case-control studies
B. prospective cohort studies
C. experimental
D. all of the above
E. none of the above
Front
A
Back
state the main advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies
Front
advantages: case-control studies take less time and money to conduct than cohort and experimental studies, they are well suited for studying rare diseases and diseases with long induction and latent periods, and they can provide information on a large number of possible risk factors
disadvantages: the possibility of bias is increased, and it may be difficult to establish a correct temporal relationship between the exposure and disease because the data are retrospective.
Back
C. case-crossover study
Front
is a new variant of the case-control study that is used to study the acute effects of transient exposures. Here, cases serve as their own controls, and the exposure frequency during a hazard period is compared with that during a control period.
Back
it is possible to obtain a valid estimate of disease prevalence from a typical case-control study
Front
False
Back
Indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
the ideal comparison group for a cohort study would consist of exactly the same individuals in the exposed group had they not be exposed
Front
true
Back
B. residual confounding
Front
means that an association remains confounded even after some confounders have been controlled. It arises from lack of information on all confounding variables, classifying confounders in overly broad categories, or mismeasuring confounders.
Back
which of the following techniques that are commonly used in experimental studies can also be applied to cohort studies?
A. Blinding
B. Placebo
C. randomization
D. Run-in period
Front
A. Yes
B. No
C. No
D. No
Back
why is it important to minimize loss to follow-up?
Front
Loss to follow-up decreases the number of individuals who can be included in the analysis and so reduces the statistical power of the study. also, if those who are lost have different rates of disease than those who remain, the study results may be biased
Back
state the main difference between differential and non differential misclassification, and state which directions each type of error can bias the study results
Front
-Nondifferential missclassification, inaccuracies that occur on one axis (exposure or disease) are independent from the other axis. of dichotomous variables biases the results towards the null
-differential missclassification, inaccuracies that occur on one axis (exposure or disease) are dependent on the other axis. can bias the results either towards or away from the null
Back
a retrospective cohort study is more efficient than a prospective cohort study for studying diseases with a long latent and induction period
Front
true
Back
B. Bias is introduced primarily during the analysis stage of a study
Front
false
Back
State the main similarity and main difference between cohort and experimental studies?
Front
The main similarity is that both compare two or more exposure groups, which are followed to monitor outcome rates. The main difference is that the investigators allocate the exposure in experimental studies, and the participants choose their exposure in cohort studies
Back
A. Recall Bias
Front
occurs when the level of accuracy differs between the compared groups.
-in case-control study when cases remember or report their exposures differently from controls
-in cohort study when individuals who are exposed remember or report subsequent illnesses differently than those who are unexposed
Back
loss to follow-up can be a problem in a cohort study but not an experimental study
Front
false
Back
F. poor recall and recall bias are synonymous terms for the same concept
Front
false
Back
C. bias can pull an estimate of association either toward the null or away from the null
Front
true
Back
Define each of the following terms:
Front
Back
Indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
Section 2
(50 cards)
what measure?
the percentage of freshman girls who become pregnant over the course of their high school years
Front
cumulative incidence
Back
D. epidemiologists can tell if confounding is present by examining the strength of the crude measure of association
Front
false
Back
what is the main limitation of significance testing?
Front
the chief limitation is the use of purely arbitrary cutoff for deciding whether or not to reject the null hypothesis
Back
B. Sufficient cause
Front
is a set of conditions without any one of which the disease would not have occurred
Back
E. a statistically significant finding always has public health significance
Front
false
Back
E. exposure to HIV is a necessary cause of AIDS
Front
true
Back
Describe the temporal relationship between the induction period and latent period
Front
the overall induction period begins with the action of the first causal component and ends with the action of the last causal component and the simultaneous biological onset of disease. The latent period follows the induction period and so begins with the biological onset of disease and ends with the disease diagnosis
Back
why are P values considered confounded statistics?
Front
P-values are affected both by the magnitude of the association and the study size, thus, when results are summarized only by p-values, it is impossible to determine if a p value is small because the measure of association is strong or because the sample size is large. it is also impossible to determine if a P value is large because the association is weak or the sample size is small
Back
What is the main assumption involved in hypothesis testing and the calculation of P values?
Front
the main assumption is that the null hypothesis is true
Back
C. a causal relationship between an exposure and disease cannot be established unless all of Hill's guidelines are met
Front
false
Back
B. Intermediate variables in a causal pathway are special types of confounders
Front
false
Back
H. exposure to cigarette smoke is a sufficient cause of lung cancer
Front
false
Back
Epidemiologists plan the appropriate size for a study by:
A. using judgement, experience, and intuition
B. performing sample size calculations
C. both A and B
D. Neither A nor B
Front
C
Back
C. Necessary cause
Front
is a component cause that is a member of every sufficient cause
Back
give one reason why many epidemiologists prefer to use confidence intervals instead of P values to assess the role of random errer
Front
confidence intervals are not confounded statistics like P values. they do a better job separating the influence of the sample size from the influence of the strength of the association. this is because the width of the interval is influenced mainly by the sample size, and the general position of the interval reflects the magnitude of the assocation
Back
F. Exposure to HIV is a sufficient cause of AIDS
Front
false
Back
B. reducing random error also reduces errors from bias and confounding
Front
false
Back
Indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
what measure?
the percentage of infants weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth?
Front
prevalence
Back
Describe the main similarities and differences between the following:
Front
Back
Indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
Risk Difference associations (RD)
Front
Rate or risk in exposed (Rexp)-rate or risk in unexposed (Runexp)
RD= 1 (excess risk of disease)
RD= 2 (excess risk of 2)
RD= .05 (weak association)
RD= 0 (no association)
Back
G. exposure to cigarette smoke is a necessary cause of lung cancer
Front
false
Back
A. cause of disease
Front
A cause of a disease is an event, condition, or characteristic that preceded the disease and without which the disease either would not have occurred or would have occurred later
Back
Define each of the following terms:
Front
Back
C. Statistical inference
Front
is a method for generalizing results from a sample to a parent population
Back
Indicate whether the following statements are true or false:
Front
Back
describe two methods for controlling confounding during the analysis, and give one advantage and one disadvantage for each method
Front
-Stratification: process of evaluating the association within homogeneous categories of a confounder. straightforward and easy to carry out. it cannot control for numerous variables because a large number of strata are generated relative to the number of study subjects.
-Multivariate analysis: a method for controlling confounding by constructing a mathematical model that describes the association between the exposure, the outcome, and confounders. it can control for may confounders simultaneously. One can not longer view the raw data
Back
E. age specific rate and age adjusted rate
Front
-age specific rate is a rate that applies only to a particular age group
-age adjusted rate is a summary rate that accounts for the age differences between two populations
Back
B. incidence rate and cumulative incidence
Front
similarity: both quantify the number of new cases of disease that develop in a population at risk during a specified period of time
difference: incidence rate is a true rate that directly integrates person-time of observation into the denominator and
cumulative incidence is a proportion whose denominator is the population at risk at the start of the observation period
Back
what measure?
the lifetime risk of breast cancer
Front
cumulative incidence
Back
state the probability distributions that are commonly used in epidemiological research and describe the settings in which they are used
Front
the normal distribution is used for continuous variables, and the binomial and Poisson distributions are used for discrete variables with two mutually exclusive outcomes. In addition, the poisson distribution is usually reserved for rare events
Back
D. Hill's guidelines of specificity means that an exposure can cause only one disease
Front
true
Back
what measure?
the percentage of senior boys who are fathers at the time of graduation
Front
prevalence
Back
A. Chance
Front
is an uncontrollable force that seems to have no assignable or predictable cause
Back
E. experimental studies always have less confounding than observational studies
Front
false
Back
A. prevalence and incidence
Front
-prevalence quantifies existing cases
-incidence quantifies new cases
Back
A. Hill's guidelines of temporality is more easily established in a prospective than retrospective study
Front
true
Back
Define the following terms:
Front
Back
A. all high-quality epidemiological studies include techniques for controlling confounding
Front
true
Back
how do you determine if a variable confounds an association?
Front
Epidemiologists usually compare the crude/confounded measure of association with the adjusted measure of association. If there is an appreciable difference between the two, confounding is considered present.
Back
D. Increasing the sample size decreases the change of selecting an unrepresentative sample
Front
true
Back
B. precision
Front
is the lack of random error. it is defined either as the state or quality of being exact or the ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced
Back
C. precise exposure data can be achieved by repeating the exposure measurements
Front
true
Back
B. Strong associations are more likely to be causal than weak ones because they are less likely to be due to alternative explanations
Front
true
Back
what measure?
the number of live born babies who die of SIDS during the first year of life per 100,000 baby years of follow up
Front
incidence rate
Back
C. incidence rate ratio and incidence rate difference
Front
they are both ways to compare measures of disease frequency in order to assess the impact of an exposure on a disease
-the ratio measure gives information on the strength of the relationship between an exposure and disease
-the difference measure describes the excess number of cases of disease that are associated with the exposure
Back
A. Unlike bias and confounding, random errors are unsystematic
Front
true
Back
D. risk difference and population risk difference
Front
both provided information on the absolute effect of the exposure or the excess risk of disease
-risk difference gives the number of cases of disease among the exposed that may be attributable to the exposure
-population risk difference gives the number of cases of disease in the total population that may be attributable to the exposure
Back
C. The counterfactual ideal is used to guide the selection of a comparison group in order to minimize confounding
Front
true
Back
Section 3
(48 cards)
ecologic study limitations
Front
-ecological fallacy: the association observed at the aggregate level may not represent the association that exists at the individual level
-cannot infer findings from an ecologic study to the individual level
-lack of info on important variables
Back
case report/ series
Front
-describe the experience of a single patient or a group of patients with a similar diagnosis
case report: individual
case series: several individuals
-often based on clinical hunches
Back
prospective cohort study
Front
-no one has outcome yet when study commences
Back
selection bias
Front
-characteristics of those selected for the study are systematically different than those not selected for study
-procedures used to select subjects into a study lead to a result different from what would have been obtained from the entire population targeted for study
Back
information bias
Front
-not a valid measure due to incorrect information
-error that arises from systematic differences in the way information on exposure or disease is obtained from the study groups
-recall bias
-interviewer bias
-misclassification
-loss to follow up
Back
prospective cohort study limitations
Front
-expensive and time consuming
-inefficient for diseases with long induction and latency periods
Back
case-control study limitations
Front
-inefficient for rare exposures
-temporal relationship sometimes indeterminate
-susceptibility to bias
-differential selection of cases and controls
-differential reporting of exposure
-usually difficult to estimate rates
Back
prospective cohort study strengths
Front
-clear temporal relationship between exposure and outcome
-efficient for diseases with short induction and latency periods
-good for current exposures
-good info on exposure, useful when want high quality data
Back
characteristics of a cause
Front
1. essential attributes
-association: occur together
-time order: must precede effect
-directionality: cause-effect
2. can be either host or environmental factors
3. positive (presence of causative exposure) or negative (lack of preventive exposure)
Back
cross-sectional study
Front
-"snap shot" of disease experience
-examine association at a single point in time
-measure exposure prevalence in relation to disease prevalence.
-ascertain exposure and outcome at the same time
-population for survey is well-defined
Back
ratio measures
Front
-provide information on the relative effect of the exposure on the disease
-how many times higher or lower the disease risk is among the exposed as compared to the unexposed
Back
P-value
Front
-extent to which the null hypothesis is compatible with the data
-how likely it is that the observed result would occur, if the null hypothesis is really the truth
-ranges from 0-1
Back
experimental study limitations
Front
-costly
-healthy sick
-ethical barriers
-outcomes may be too rare
-restricted scope
odds of being exposed among cases / odds of being exposed among controls
OR= 1 (no association)
OR > 1 (greater odds, risk factor)
OR < 1 (protective factor)
Back
positive predictive value (PPV)
Front
PPV= number who test positive with disease/ number with positive result
Back
Type I error
Front
-incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis
-send an innocent man to jail
-measure by alpha (compare p-value to alpha)
Back
cross-sectional study strengths
Front
-"snap shot" of the health/demographics/resources of a population
-hypothesis formation
-relatively inexpensive compared to others
-loss to follow-up not typically problematic
-good generizabilitly
-public health planning
Back
Type II error
Front
-failing to reject the null hypothesis
-setting a guilty man free
-measured by beta
Back
null hypothesis
Front
assuming there is no association between exposure and outcome
RR= 1, OR=1, RD=0
Back
specificity
Front
-a measure of a screening tests validity
-its the probability that a screening test classifies as negative those individuals who do not have a pre-clinical disease
Back
retrospective cohort study limitations
Front
-poor information on exposure and potential confounders
-no control over which variables collected or quality of data
-more prone to bias in part because outcome has occurred when data is collected
Back
cohort study strengths
Front
-can look at multiple outcomes
-meaning you can evaluate multiple effects of an exposure
-good for rare exposures
-can directly measure disease incidence or risk
Back
what are the three requirements for a screening test?
Front
1. has serious consequences
2. disease treatment must be effective at an earlier stage
3. has to be able to detect disease before symptoms start, a detectable pre-clinical phase
Back
retrospective cohort study strengths
Front
-efficient for diseases with long induction and latency periods
Back
Ecologic study
Front
-unit of analysis is a group, population level
-exposure and or disease are measured only in the aggregate
Back
ecologic study strengths
Front
-low cost
-wide range of exposure levels
-ability to examine contextual effects on health
Back
Confidence Interval (CI)
Front
-a range of values likely to cover the true point estimate (RR, OR, or RD) usually 95%
"a range of reasonable values that are intended to contain the parameter of interest with a certain degree of confidence (95%)
-if the null value (RR, OR, RD) is contained within the CI, then the test is not significant
Back
cross-sectional study limitations
Front
-temporal sequence can be clouded, cannot say exposure caused disease
-beneficial for determinants that do not change
-subject to determinants of survival
-prevalent not incident cases of disease
Back
retrospective cohort study
Front
-both exposure and outcome have occured
Back
difference measures
Front
-absolute effect of exposure on disease occurrence
-excess disease risk in the exposed group compared to the unexposed group
-public health impact of an exposure, that is, how much disease would be prevented if the exposure were removed
Back
experimental study strengths
Front
-strongest evidence for cause and effect
-reduce external variation, bias, confounders
randomization
placebo
blinding
Back
sensitivity
Front
-a measure of a screening tests validity.
-it is the probability that a screening test classifies as positive those individuals who have a pre-clinical disease
-inefficient for rare outcomes
-loss to follow-up (affects validity)
Back
case-control study
Front
-both exposure and outcome have occurred
-comparison of the exposure histories of cases and controls
Back
Hill's Guidelines of causality
Front
1. strength of the association
2. consistency
3. specificity
4. temporality
5. biological gradient
6. plausibility
7. coherence
8. experimental evidence
9. analogy
Back
what is the 3 criteria for a confounder?
Front
1. associated with exposure
2. risk factor for outcome (independent of exposure)
3. not in causal pathway between exposure and outcome
Back
when to use a case-control study vs. a cohort
Front
1. when the exposure data is difficult or expensive to obtain
2. when the disease is rare
3. when the disease has a long induction and latent period
4. when little is known about the disease
5. when the population under study is dynamic
Back
case report/ series limitations
Front
-only one or several patients
-no comparison (control group)
-can be influenced by external factors: media, legal systems
Back
Relative Ratio associations (RR)
Front
rate or risk in exposed (Rexp) / rate or risk in unexposed (Runexp)
RR= 1 (no assocation)
RR= 2 (2x the risk)
RR= .05 (half the risk, protective)
RR= 0 (can't really happen)
Back
When do you accept or reject the null hypothesis?
Front
-If P-value is < 0.05, results are unlikely to be due to chance, and we reject the null
-If P-value is > 0.05, chance is likely an explanation for the finding, and we don't reject the null
Back
negative predictive value (NPV)
Front
NPV= number who test negative with disease/ number with negative result
Back
what are the two types of study designs?
Front
-analytic
-descriptive
Back
what study designs are descriptive?
Front
-individual:
cross-sectional
case-series
case report
-population:
ecologic
Back
experimental study
Front
-randomization assigns intervention
Back
case report/series strengths
Front
-useful for disease surveillance
-useful to generate a hypothesis for further investigation
-relatively inexpensive
Back
case-control study strengths
Front
-more efficient for rare outcomes
-more efficient for diseases with long latency periods
-can look at multiple exposures
-less time, less expensive