Section 1

Preview this deck

the odds of illness are mathematically equivalent to the risk of illness

Front

Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%
Star 0%

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Active users

0

All-time users

0

Favorites

0

Last updated

6 years ago

Date created

Mar 1, 2020

Cards (148)

Section 1

(50 cards)

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

Back

what study designs are analytic?

Front

-intervention/ experimental -observational: prospective cohort retrospective cohort case-control nested case-control

Back

Odds Ratio associations (OR)

Front

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

Back

how can you control for confounding?

Front

design phase: -randomization -restriction -matching analysis phase: -stratification -multivariate analysis

Back

cohort study limitations

Front

-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

Back