Bijsluiter lezen voor gebruik

Oratie uitgesproken door Prof.dr. R.H.H. Groenwold bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar in de Klinische Epidemiologie, in het bijzonder methodologie van onderzoek naar medische behandelingen aan de Universiteit Leiden op maandag 4 maart 2019LUMC / Geneeskund

Response to: Letter on immunoassay measurement errors

Diabetes mellitus: pathophysiological changes and therap

Methodology for the endocrinologist: basic aspects of confounding adjustment

The results of observational studies of causal effects are potentially biased due to confounding. Various methods have been proposed to control for confounding in observational studies. Eight basic aspects of confounding adjustment are described, with a focus on correction for confounding through covariate adjustment using regression analysis. These aspects should be considered when planning an observational study of causal effects or when assessing the validity of the results of such a study

Missing data: the impact of what is not there

The validity of clinical research is potentially threatened by missing data. Any variable measured in a study can have missing values, including the exposure, the outcome, and confounders. When missing values are ignored in the analysis, only those subjects with complete records will be included in the analysis. This may lead to biased results and loss of power. We explain why missing data may lead to bias and discuss a commonly used classification of missing data

When observational studies can give wrong answers: the potential of immortal time bias

Immortal time bias should always be considered in an observational study if exposure status is determined based on a measurement or event that occurs after baseline. This bias can lead to an overestimation of an effect, but also to an underestimation, which is explained. Several approaches are illustrated that can be used to avoid immortal time bias in the analysis phase of the study; a time-dependent analysis to avoid immortal time bias optimizes the use of available information.Clinical epidemiolog

Measurement error in clinical research, yes it matters

The validity of any biomedical study is potentially affected by measurement error or misclassification. It can affect different variables included in a statistical analysis, such as the exposure, the outcome, and confounders, and can result in an overestimation as well as in an underestimation of the relation under investigation. We discuss various aspects of measurement error and argue that often an in-depth discussion is needed to appropriately assess the quality and validity of a study.Diabetes mellitus: pathophysiological changes and therap

Identification of causal effects in case-control studies

Background Case-control designs are an important yet commonly misunderstood tool in the epidemiologist's arsenal for causal inference. We reconsider classical concepts, assumptions and principles and explore when the results of case-control studies can be endowed a causal interpretation. Results We establish how, and under which conditions, various causal estimands relating to intention-to-treat or per-protocol effects can be identified based on the data that are collected under popular sampling schemes (case-base, survivor, and risk-set sampling, with or without matching). We present a concise summary of our identification results that link the estimands to the (distribution of the) available data and articulate under which conditions these links hold. Conclusion The modern epidemiologist's arsenal for causal inference is well-suited to make transparent for case-control designs what assumptions are necessary or sufficient to endow the respective study results with a causal interpretation and, in turn, help resolve or prevent misunderstanding. Our approach may inform future research on different estimands, other variations of the case-control design or settings with additional complexities.Clinical epidemiolog

Bias of time-varying exposure effects due to time-varying covariate measurement strategies

Purpose In studies of effects of time-varying drug exposures, adequate adjustment for time-varying covariates is often necessary to properly control for confounding. However, the granularity of the available covariate data may not be sufficiently fine, for example when covariates are measured for participants only when their exposure levels change. Methods To illustrate the impact of choices regarding the frequency of measuring time-varying covariates, we simulated data for a large target trial and for large observational studies, varying in covariate measurement design. Covariates were measured never, on a fixed-interval basis, or each time the exposure level switched. For the analysis, it was assumed that covariates remain constant in periods of no measurement. Cumulative survival probabilities for continuous exposure and non-exposure were estimated using inverse probability weighting to adjust for time-varying confounding, with special emphasis on the difference between 5-year event risks. Results With monthly covariate measurements, estimates based on observational data coincided with trial-based estimates, with 5-year risk differences being zero. Without measurement of baseline or post-baseline covariates, this risk difference was estimated to be 49% based on the available observational data. With measurements on a fixed-interval basis only, 5-year risk differences deviated from the null, to 29% for 6-monthly measurements, and with magnitude increasing up to 35% as the interval length increased. Risk difference estimates diverged from the null to as low as -18% when covariates were measured depending on exposure level switching. Conclusion Our simulations highlight the need for careful consideration of time-varying covariates in designing studies on time-varying exposures. We caution against implementing designs with long intervals between measurements. The maximum length required will depend on the rates at which treatments and covariates change, with higher rates requiring shorter measurement intervals.Clinical epidemiolog

Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research

Epidemiologists are often confronted with datasets to analyse which contain measurement error due to, for instance, mistaken data entries, inaccurate recordings and measurement instrument or procedural errors. If the effect of measurement error is misjudged, the data analyses are hampered and the validity of the study's inferences may be affected. In this paper, we describe five myths that contribute to misjudgments about measurement error, regarding expected structure, impact and solutions to mitigate the problems resulting from mismeasurements. The aim is to clarify these measurement error misconceptions. We show that the influence of measurement error in an epidemiological data analysis can play out in ways that go beyond simple heuristics, such as heuristics about whether or not to expect attenuation of the effect estimates. Whereas we encourage epidemiologists to deliberate about the structure and potential impact of measurement error in their analyses, we also recommend exercising restraint when making claims about the magnitude or even direction of effect of measurement error if not accompanied by statistical measurement error corrections or quantitative bias analysis. Suggestions for alleviating the problems or investigating the structure and magnitude of measurement error are given.Clinical epidemiolog