Discordant Sibling Pair Comparisons in Observational Studies: A Research Design Simply Explained.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.4088/JCP.25f15843
Chittaranjan Andrade
{"title":"Discordant Sibling Pair Comparisons in Observational Studies: A Research Design Simply Explained.","authors":"Chittaranjan Andrade","doi":"10.4088/JCP.25f15843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When studying how (eg) gestational exposure to antidepressant drugs influences the risk of (eg) autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in offspring, conventional observational studies adjust analyses for available covariates and confounds. In such analyses, a significant association between antidepressant exposure and ASD outcome can never be asserted to be causal because of the possibility of residual confounding arising from confounding by indication (or severity thereof), confounding by genetic risk factors, and confounding by environmental risk factors. Confounding by indication and severity thereof can sometimes be addressed through propensity score matching, but the adjustment can never be perfect. Additionally, adjustment for genetic and environmental risk factors is hard or impossible to do because these are inadequately measured, unmeasured, and/or unknown variables. Sibling comparison studies have recently emerged as an option to address the genetic and environmental risk factors. In such studies, sibs discordant for exposure are compared for risk of outcome (cohort design) or sibs discordant for outcome are compared for odds of exposure (case-control design). The assumption is that sibs share similar genetic and environmental risk factors and so, when sibs are compared, these risk factors cancel out whether they are measured or not, known or unknown. If antidepressant exposure remains significantly associated with ASD in sibling comparisons, a possible conclusion is that antidepressants and not genetic or environmental factors drive the ASD risk. If antidepressant exposure loses significance in the sibling comparisons, it suggests that shared genetic and/or environmental factors, rather than antidepressant exposure, explain the ASD risk. The interpretation, however, is nuanced. Strengths, limitations, and interpretations of sibling comparison studies are explained. To illustrate the usefulness of sibling comparisons, results are presented from a recent study of ASD risk after gestational or early infancy exposure to antibiotics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":"86 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.25f15843","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When studying how (eg) gestational exposure to antidepressant drugs influences the risk of (eg) autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in offspring, conventional observational studies adjust analyses for available covariates and confounds. In such analyses, a significant association between antidepressant exposure and ASD outcome can never be asserted to be causal because of the possibility of residual confounding arising from confounding by indication (or severity thereof), confounding by genetic risk factors, and confounding by environmental risk factors. Confounding by indication and severity thereof can sometimes be addressed through propensity score matching, but the adjustment can never be perfect. Additionally, adjustment for genetic and environmental risk factors is hard or impossible to do because these are inadequately measured, unmeasured, and/or unknown variables. Sibling comparison studies have recently emerged as an option to address the genetic and environmental risk factors. In such studies, sibs discordant for exposure are compared for risk of outcome (cohort design) or sibs discordant for outcome are compared for odds of exposure (case-control design). The assumption is that sibs share similar genetic and environmental risk factors and so, when sibs are compared, these risk factors cancel out whether they are measured or not, known or unknown. If antidepressant exposure remains significantly associated with ASD in sibling comparisons, a possible conclusion is that antidepressants and not genetic or environmental factors drive the ASD risk. If antidepressant exposure loses significance in the sibling comparisons, it suggests that shared genetic and/or environmental factors, rather than antidepressant exposure, explain the ASD risk. The interpretation, however, is nuanced. Strengths, limitations, and interpretations of sibling comparison studies are explained. To illustrate the usefulness of sibling comparisons, results are presented from a recent study of ASD risk after gestational or early infancy exposure to antibiotics.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在研究(例如)妊娠期接触抗抑郁药物如何影响(例如)后代患自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的风险时,传统的观察性研究会根据现有的协变量和混杂因素调整分析。在此类分析中,抗抑郁药物暴露与自闭症谱系障碍结果之间的显著相关性永远不能断言为因果关系,因为可能会存在因适应症(或其严重程度)、遗传风险因素和环境风险因素造成的残余混杂因素。适应症及其严重程度造成的混杂有时可以通过倾向得分匹配来解决,但调整永远不可能完美。此外,对遗传和环境风险因素的调整很难或不可能做到,因为这些都是未充分测量、未测量和/或未知的变量。最近出现的同胞比较研究是解决遗传和环境风险因素的一种选择。在这类研究中,对暴露不一致的兄弟姐妹进行结果风险比较(队列设计),或对暴露不一致的兄弟姐妹进行结果几率比较(病例对照设计)。其假设是,兄弟姐妹具有相似的遗传和环境风险因素,因此,当兄弟姐妹进行比较时,这些风险因素无论是否测量过、已知还是未知,都会抵消。如果在同胞比较中,抗抑郁药暴露与 ASD 仍有显著相关性,那么可能得出的结论是,是抗抑郁药而不是遗传或环境因素导致了 ASD 风险。如果抗抑郁药暴露在同胞比较中失去意义,则表明共同的遗传和/或环境因素,而不是抗抑郁药暴露,可以解释 ASD 风险。然而,这种解释是有细微差别的。本文对同胞比较研究的优势、局限性和解释进行了说明。为了说明同胞比较的作用,本文介绍了最近一项关于妊娠期或婴儿早期接触抗生素后 ASD 风险的研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Eudaimonia, Virtue, and Idealization
IF 0 Handbuch Tugend und TugendethikPub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-24466-8_3
D. Russell
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: For over 75 years, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has been a leading source of peer-reviewed articles offering the latest information on mental health topics to psychiatrists and other medical professionals.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry is the leading psychiatric resource for clinical information and covers disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while exploring the newest advances in diagnosis and treatment.
期刊最新文献
A Single-Dose, Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Design Study to Characterize the Pharmacokinetics of an Investigational Olanzapine Intranasal Spray Compared to a Reference Dose of Olanzapine Intramuscular Injection in Healthy Adult Males. The Association Between Infant Distress to Limitation and Postpartum Depression Treatment Response. Discordant Sibling Pair Comparisons in Observational Studies: A Research Design Simply Explained. Longitudinal Effects of Negative Ethnic-Racial Identity Affect on Internalizing Symptoms in Youth of Latiné Background Exposed to Interpersonal Trauma. Suicide Among Veterans Health Administration Patients With Bipolar Disorder: Evidence for Increased Risk Associated With Benzodiazepine Receipt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1