Causal Inference with Case-Only Studies in Injury Epidemiology Research.

3区 医学 Current Epidemiology Reports Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-29 DOI:10.1007/s40471-022-00306-8
Andrew G Rundle, Michael D M Bader, Charles C Branas, Gina S Lovasi, Stephen J Mooney, Christopher N Morrison, Kathryn M Neckerman
{"title":"Causal Inference with Case-Only Studies in Injury Epidemiology Research.","authors":"Andrew G Rundle, Michael D M Bader, Charles C Branas, Gina S Lovasi, Stephen J Mooney, Christopher N Morrison, Kathryn M Neckerman","doi":"10.1007/s40471-022-00306-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>We review the application and limitations of two implementations of the \"case-only design\" in injury epidemiology with example analyses of Fatality Analysis Reporting System data.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The term \"case-only design\" covers a variety of epidemiologic designs; here, two implementations of the design are reviewed: (1) studies to uncover etiological heterogeneity and (2) studies to measure exposure effect modification. These two designs produce results that require different interpretations and rely upon different assumptions. The key assumption of case-only designs for exposure effect modification, the more commonly used of the two designs, does not commonly hold for injuries and so results from studies using this design cannot be interpreted. Case-only designs to identify etiological heterogeneity in injury risk are interpretable but only when the case-series is conceptualized as arising from an underlying cohort.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The results of studies using case-only designs are commonly misinterpreted in the injury literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":48527,"journal":{"name":"Current Epidemiology Reports","volume":"9 4","pages":"223-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Epidemiology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00306-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: We review the application and limitations of two implementations of the "case-only design" in injury epidemiology with example analyses of Fatality Analysis Reporting System data.

Recent findings: The term "case-only design" covers a variety of epidemiologic designs; here, two implementations of the design are reviewed: (1) studies to uncover etiological heterogeneity and (2) studies to measure exposure effect modification. These two designs produce results that require different interpretations and rely upon different assumptions. The key assumption of case-only designs for exposure effect modification, the more commonly used of the two designs, does not commonly hold for injuries and so results from studies using this design cannot be interpreted. Case-only designs to identify etiological heterogeneity in injury risk are interpretable but only when the case-series is conceptualized as arising from an underlying cohort.

Summary: The results of studies using case-only designs are commonly misinterpreted in the injury literature.

Abstract Image

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
伤害流行病学研究中的因果推断与个案研究。
审查目的:我们通过死亡分析报告系统数据的示例分析,审查了“仅病例设计”在伤害流行病学中的两种实施方式的应用和局限性。最近的发现:“仅病例设计”一词涵盖了各种流行病学设计;在此,回顾了该设计的两种实施方式:(1)揭示病因异质性的研究和(2)测量暴露效应修饰的研究。这两种设计产生的结果需要不同的解释,并依赖于不同的假设。两种设计中更常用的仅针对暴露效应修改的案例设计的关键假设通常不适用于伤害,因此无法解释使用该设计的研究结果。识别损伤风险的病因异质性的仅病例设计是可解释的,但只有当病例系列被概念化为源于潜在队列时。总结:使用仅病例设计的研究结果在损伤文献中通常被误解。
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
来源期刊
Current Epidemiology Reports
Current Epidemiology Reports OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊最新文献
Gentrification and Health: A Review of the Literature, 2018–2023 The Target Cohort Approach: An Extension of the Target Trial Framework to Nested Case-Control Studies with Incidence Density Sampling The Intersection of the Microbiome and Adiposity in Cancer Risk and Outcomes: Breast, Endometrial, and Colorectal Cancers Towards a Precision Model for Environmental Public Health: Wastewater-based Epidemiology to Assess Population-level Exposures and Related Diseases Vitamin D and Toxic Metals in Pregnancy - a Biological Perspective
×
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