Simpson's Paradox, Lord's Paradox, and Suppression Effects are the same phenomenon – the reversal paradox

This article discusses three statistical paradoxes that pervade epidemiological research: Simpson's paradox, Lord's paradox, and suppression. These paradoxes have important implications for the interpretation of evidence from observational studies. This article uses hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how the three paradoxes are different manifestations of one phenomenon – the reversal paradox – depending on whether the outcome and explanatory variables are categorical, continuous or a combination of both; this renders the issues and remedies for any one to be similar for all three. Although the three statistical paradoxes occur in different types of variables, they share the same characteristic: the association between two variables can be reversed, diminished, or enhanced when another variable is statistically controlled for. Understanding the concepts and theory behind these paradoxes provides insights into some controversial or contradictory research findings. These paradoxes show that prior knowledge and underlying causal theory play an important role in the statistical modelling of epidemiological data, where incorrect use of statistical models might produce consistent, replicable, yet erroneous results

Cholesterol treatment with statins: Who is left out and who makes it to goal?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Whether patient socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education) are independently associated with failure to receive indicated statin therapy and/or to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) therapy goals are not known. We examined socio-demographic factors associated with a) eligibility for statin therapy among those not on statins, and b) achievement of statin therapy goals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults (21-79 years) participating in the United States (US) National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1999-2006 were studied. Statin eligibility and achievement of target LDL-C was assessed using the US Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) on Treatment of High Cholesterol guidelines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 6,043 participants not taking statins, 10.4% were eligible. Adjusted predictors of statin eligibility among statin non-users were being older, male, poorer, and less educated. Hispanics were less likely to be eligible but not using statins, an effect that became non-significant with adjustment for language usually spoken at home. Among 537 persons taking statins, 81% were at LDL-C goal. Adjusted predictors of goal failure among statin users were being male and poorer. These risks were not attenuated by adjustment for healthcare access or utilization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among person's not taking statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are more likely to be eligible and among those on statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are less likely to achieve statin treatment goals. Further study is needed to identify specific amenable patient and/or physician factors that contribute to these disparities.</p

The impact of statins on health services utilization and mortality in older adults discharged from hospital with ischemic heart disease: a cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) carries a high burden of morbidity and mortality and is associated with significant utilization of health care resources, especially in the elderly. Numerous randomized trials have established the efficacy of cholesterol reduction with statin medications in decreasing mortality in high-risk populations. However, it is not known what the effect of the utilization of these medications in complex older adults has had on mortality and on the utilization of health services, such as physician visits, hospitalizations or cardiovascular procedures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This project linked clinical and hospital data from the Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes in Nova Scotia (ICONS) database with administrative data from the Population Health Research Unit to identify all older adults hospitalized with ischemic heart disease between October 15, 1997 and March 31, 2001. All patients were followed for at least one year or until death. Multiple regression techniques, including Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear models were employed to compare health services utilization and mortality for statin users and non-statin users.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 4232 older adults discharged alive from the hospital, 1629 (38%) received a statin after discharge. In multivariate models after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, and propensity score, statins were associated with a 26% reduction in all- cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.88). However, statin use was not associated with subsequent reductions in health service utilization, including re-hospitalizations (HR, 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.06), physician visits (relative risk (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.02) or coronary revascularization procedures (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.36).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As the utilization of statins continues to grow, their impact on the health care system will continue to be important. Future studies are needed to continue to ensure that those who would realize significant benefit from the medication receive it.</p

The relationship between blood pressure and risk of renal cell carcinoma

Background The relation between blood pressure and kidney cancer risk is well established but complex and different study designs have reported discrepant findings on the relative importance of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). In this study, we sought to describe the temporal relation between diastolic and SBP with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) risk in detail. Methods Our study involved two prospective cohorts: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study and UK Biobank, including >700 000 participants and 1692 incident RCC cases. Risk analyses were conducted using flexible parametric survival models for DBP and SBP both separately as well as with mutuality adjustment and then adjustment for extended risk factors. We also carried out univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses (DBP: ninstruments = 251, SBP: ninstruments = 213) to complement the analyses of measured DBP and SBP. Results In the univariable analysis, we observed clear positive associations with RCC risk for both diastolic and SBP when measured ≥5 years before diagnosis and suggestive evidence for a stronger risk association in the year leading up to diagnosis. In mutually adjusted analysis, the long-term risk association of DBP remained, with a hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation increment 10 years before diagnosis (HR10y) of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.10–1.30), whereas the association of SBP was attenuated (HR10y: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91–1.10). In the complementary multivariable MR analysis, we observed an odds ratio for a 1-SD increment (ORsd) of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08–1.67) for genetically predicted DBP and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56–0.88) for genetically predicted SBP. Conclusion The results of this observational and MR study are consistent with an important role of DBP in RCC aetiology. The relation between SBP and RCC risk was less clear but does not appear to be independent of DBP

An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case-finding approach

OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case-finding approach. Using data from the "Ageing in General Practice" study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia beyond those patients already identified by passive case-finding. METHOD: Patients were classified as "case-finding" (n = 425) or "screening" (n = 1006) based on their answers to four subjective memory related questions or their GP's clinical judgement of their dementia status. Cognitive status of each patient was formally assessed by a research nurse using the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG-R). Patients then attended their usual GP for administration of the GP assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) dementia screening instrument, and follow-up care and/or referral as necessary in light of the outcome. RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in the case-finding group (13.6%) compared to the screening group (4.6%; p 95% in both groups. GPs and their patients both found the GPCOG to be an acceptable cognitive assessment tool. The dementia cases missed via case-finding were younger (p = 0.024) and less cognitively impaired (p = 0.020) than those detected. CONCLUSION: There is a very limited benefit of screening for dementia, as most people with dementia could be detected using a case-finding approach, and considerable potential for social and economic harm because of the low PPV associated with screening

Recruiting general practice patients for large clinical trials: lessons from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study

Objective: To assess the factors that contributed to the successful completion of recruitment for the largest clinical trial ever conducted in Australia, the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study.Design: Enrolment of GPs; identification of potential participants in general practice databases; screening of participants.Setting, Participants: Selected general practices across southeast Australia (Tasmania, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia).Major Outcomes: Numbers of patients per GP screened and randomised to participation; geographic and demographic factors that influenced screening and randomising of patients.Results: 2717 of 5833 GPs approached (47%) enrolled to recruit patients for the study; 2053 (76%) recruited at least one randomised participant. The highest randomised participant rate per GP was for Tasmania (median, 5; IQR, 1-11), driven by the high rate of participant inclusion at phone screening. GPs in inner regional (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14-1.84) and outer regional areas (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.19-2.88) were more likely than GPs in major cities to recruit at least one randomised participant. GPs in areas with a high proportion of people aged 70 years or more were more likely to randomise at least one participant (per percentage point increase: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15). The number of randomised patients declined with time from GP enrolment to first randomisation.Conclusion: General practice can be a rich environment for research when barriers to recruitment are overcome. Including regional GPs and focusing efforts in areas with the highest proportions of potentially eligible participants improves recruitment. The success of ASPREE attests to the clinical importance of its research question for Australian GPs