Advertisement

Methods and Concepts of Epidemiology

  • Rafael Mikolajczyk
Chapter
Part of the Statistics for Biology and Health book series (SBH)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to review the basic concepts of epidemiology, including definitions of measures of disease occurrence and measures of association, brief descriptions of study designs and ethical principles of epidemiological research. Additionally, the theory and criteria of causation, systematic and random errors in epidemiological studies and methodological issues related to diagnostic tests are discussed. The concepts are outlined and some examples are given.

Keywords

Population Attributable Risk Intravenous Drug User Congenital Syphilis Probabilistic Causation Dynamic Transmission Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Armstrong BG (1998) Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med 55(10): 651–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badri M, Lawn SD and Wood R (2006) Short-term risk of aids or death in people infected with HIV-1 before antiretroviral therapy in South Africa: A longitudinal study. Lancet 368(9543): 1254–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhutta ZA (2002) Ethics in international health research: A perspective from the developing world. Bull World Health Organ 80(2): 114–20Google Scholar
  4. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T and Friedenreich C (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28(1): 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunnell R, Ekwaru JP, Solberg P, Wamai N, Bikaako-Kajura W, Were W, Coutinho A, Liechty C, Madraa E, Rutherford G and Mermin J (2006) Changes in sexual behavior and risk of HIV transmission after antiretroviral therapy and prevention interventions in rural Uganda. Aids 20(1): 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D and Tyrer P (2000) Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Bmj 321(7262): 694–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cologne JB, Sharp GB, Neriishi K, Verkasalo PK, Land CE and Nakachi K (2004) Improving the efficiency of nested case-control studies of interaction by selecting controls using counter matching on exposure. Int J Epidemiol 33(3): 485–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creed-Kanashiro H, Ore B, Scurrah M, Gil A and Penny M (2005) Conducting research in developing countries: Experiences of the informed consent process from community studies in Peru. J Nutr 135(4): 925–8Google Scholar
  9. Doyle J, Armstrong R and Waters E (2008) Issues raised in systematic reviews of complex multisectoral and community based interventions. J Public Health (Oxf) 30(2): 213–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernster VL (1994) Nested case-control studies. Prev Med 23(5): 587–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flory J and Emanuel E (2004) Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. Jama 292(13): 1593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Good IJ (1962) A classification of fallacious arguments and interpretations. Technometrics 4(1): 125–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenland S and Robins JM (1988) Conceptual problems in the definition and interpretation of attributable fractions. Am J Epidemiol 128(6): 1185–97.Google Scholar
  14. Haahr MT and Hrobjartsson A (2006) Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials 3(4): 360–5Google Scholar
  15. Hartman JM, Forsen JW, Jr., Wallace MS and Neely JG (2002) Tutorials in clinical research: Part iv: Recognizing and controlling bias. Laryngoscope 112(1): 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckathorn DD (1997) Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems 44(2)Google Scholar
  17. Heckathorn DD (2002) Respondent-driven sampling ii: deriving valid population estimates from chain.Referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl 49(1): 11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckathorn DD (2007) Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: Analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol 37(1): 151–207MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hernan MA and Robins JM (2006) Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(7): 578–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill Z, Tawiah-Agyemang C, Odei-Danso S and Kirkwood B (2008)Informed consent in Ghana: What do participants really understand? J Med Ethics 34(1): 48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hrobjartsson A and Gotzsche PC (2001) Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 344(21): 1594–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones JH (1993) Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. New York, Free PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Kang M, Ragan BG and Park JH (2008) Issues in outcomes research: An overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. J Athl Train 43(2): 215–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krieger N and Zierler S (1997) The Need for epidemiologic theory. Epidemiology 8(2): 212–4Google Scholar
  25. Loong TW (2003) Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain. Bmj 327(7417): 716–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopes CS, Rodrigues LC and Sichieri R (1996) The lack of selection bias in a snowball sampled case-control study on drug abuse. Int J Epidemiol 25(6): 1267–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maclure M (1991) The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 133(2): 144–53Google Scholar
  28. Maclure M and Mittleman MA (2000) Should we use a case-crossover design? Annu Rev Public Health 21: 193–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall PA (2005) Human rights, cultural pluralism, and international health research. Theor Med Bioeth 26(6): 529–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin W (2008) Linking causal concepts, study design, analysis and inference in support of one epidemiology for population health. Prev Vet Med 86(3-4): 270–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miyazaki Y and Raudenbush SW (2000) Tests for linkage of multiple cohorts in an accelerated longitudinal design. Psychol Methods 5(1): 44–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moher D, Schulz KF and Altman DG (2001) The consort statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263): 1191–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montana LS, Mishra V and Hong R (2008) Comparison of HIV prevalence estimates from antenatal care surveillance and population-based surveys in sub-Saharan Africa. Sex Transm Infect 84 Suppl 1 : i78–i84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nardone A, Pebody RG, van den Hof S, Levy-Bruhl D, Plesner AM, Rota MC, Tischer A, Andrews N, Berbers G, Crovari P, Edmunds WJ, Gabutti G, Saliou P and Miller E (2003) Sero-epidemiology of mumps in western Europe. Epidemiol Infect 131(1): 691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parascandola M and Weed DL (2001) Causation in epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 55(12): 905–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Park T, Ki M and Yi SG (2004) Statistical analysis of Mmr vaccine adverse events on aseptic meningitis using the case cross-over design. Stat Med 23(12): 1871–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Philippe P (2001) Density incidence and cumulative incidence: A fundamental difference. Internet J Intern Med 2(2)Google Scholar
  38. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ and Evans SJ (2006) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: An extension of the consort statement. Jama 295(10): 1152–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prinzie P and Onghena P (2005). Cohort Sequential Design. B. Everitt and D. Howell, (eds.),. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  40. Putt ME and Ravina B (2002) Randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group versus crossover study designs for the study of dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Control Clin Trials 23(2): 111–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reintjes R, Kajueter H, Ehrhard I, van Treeck U and Ammons A (2005) Applying a case-crossover study design to examine transient exposures in the transmission of N. Meningitides. Eur J Epidemiol 20(7): 629–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rothman K and Greenland S (2002) Modern epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  43. Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 32(1–2): 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Grimes DA and Dore CJ (1995) The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals. Online J Curr Clin Trials Doc No 197: [81 paragraphs]Google Scholar
  45. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA and Altman DG (1994) Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. Jama 272(2): 125–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schulz KF and Grimes DA (2002a) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: Defending against deciphering. Lancet 359(9306): 614–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schulz KF and Grimes DA (2002b) Blinding in randomised trials: Hiding who got what. Lancet 359(9307): 696–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sugarman J, Lavori PW, Boeger M, Cain C, Edsond R, Morrison V and Yeh SS (2005) Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials 2(1): 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sumathipala A, Siribaddana S, Hewege S, Lekamwattage M, Athukorale M, Siriwardhana C, Murray J and Prince M (2008) Ethics review committee approval and informed consent: An analysis of biomedical publications originating from Sri Lanka. BMC Med Ethics 9: 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Susser M (2001) Glossary: Causality in public health science. J Epidemiol Community Health 55: 376–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Susser M and Susser E (1996a) Choosing a future for epidemiology: i. eras and paradigms. Am J Public Health 86(5): 668–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Susser M and Susser E (1996b) Choosing a future for epidemiology: Ii. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. Am J Public Health 86(5): 674–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sutherland ER (2007) Sham procedure versus usual care as the control in clinical trials of devices: Which is better? Proc Am Thorac Soc 4(7): 574–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC and Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4(10): e296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT and Mandel JS (1992a) Selection of controls in case-control studies. I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol 135(9): 1019–28Google Scholar
  56. Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK and Mandel JS (1992b) Selection of controls in case-control studies. II. Types of controls. Am J Epidemiol 135(9): 1029–41Google Scholar
  57. Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK and Mandel JS (1992c) Selection of controls in case-control studies. III. Design options. Am J Epidemiol 135(9): 1042–50Google Scholar
  58. World medical association declaration of Helsinki. ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [http://Www.Wma.Net/E/Policy/Pdf/17c.Pdf] Website

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health Medicine, School of Public HealthUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations