Advertisement

Known Effects

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)

Abstract

As seen in Chapter 4, observational studies vary considerably in their sensitivity to hidden bias. The study of the study of coffee and myocardial infarction in §4.4.5 is sensitive to small biases while the studies of smoking and lung cancer in §4.3.3 or DES and vaginal cancer in §4.4.5 are sensitive only to biases that are many times larger. If sensitive to small biases, a study is especially open to the criticism that a particular unrecorded covariate was not controlled because, in this case, small differences in an important covariate can readily explain the difference in outcomes in treated and control groups. Still, all observational studies are sensitive to sufficiently large biases, and large biases have occurred on occasion; see §4.4.3. A sensitivity analysis shows how biases of various magnitudes might alter conclusions, but it does not indicate whether biases are present or what magnitudes are plausible.

Keywords

Childhood Cancer Chromosome Aberration Nuclear Testing Chromosome Damage Postmenopausal Estrogen 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, H.L. and Krey, P.W. (1983). Radiation exposures in Utah from Nevada nuclear tests. Science, 220, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, D. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. D’Abadie, C. and Proschan, F. (1984). Stochastic versions of rearrangement inequalities. In Inequalities in Statistics and Probability (ed. Y.L. Tong). Hayward, CA: Institute of Mathematical Statistics, pp. 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gastwirth, J. (1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy. New York: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.Google Scholar
  7. Hollander, M., Proschan, F., and Sethuraman, J. (1977). Functions decreasing in transposition and their applications in ranking problems. Annals of Statistics, 5, 722–733.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Infante, P., Rinsky, R., Wagoner, J., and Young, R. (1977). Leukemia in benzene workers. Lancet, July 9, 1977, 76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kreiger, N., Kelsey, J., Holford, T., and O’Connor, T. (1982). An epidemiologic study of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 116, 141–148.Google Scholar
  10. Land, C.E. (1979). The hazards of fallout or of epidemiologic research. New England Journal of Medicine, 300, 431–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lilienfeld, A. (1959). On the methodology of investigations of etiologic factors in chronic diseases—Some comments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 10, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lyon, J.L., Klauber, M.R., Gardner, J.W., and Udall, K.S. (1979). Childhood leukemias associated with fallout from nuclear testing. New England Journal of Medicine, 300, 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Petitti, D., Perlman, J., and Sidney, S. (1986). Postmenopausal estrogen use and heart disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 315, 131–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1984a). From association to causation in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 41–48.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1984b). The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 147, 656–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1989a). On permutation tests for hidden biases in observational studies: An application of Holley’s inequality to the Savage lattice. Annals of Statistics, 17, 643–653.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1989b). The role of known effects in observational studies. Biometrics, 45, 557–569.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenbaum, P.R. (1992). Detecting bias with confidence in observational studies. Biometrika, 79, 367–374.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rothman, K. (1986) Modern Epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  20. Sackett, D. (1979). Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 32, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sartwell, P. (1960). On the methodology of investigations of etiologic factors in chronic diseases: Further comments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 11, 61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skerfving, S., Hansson, K., Mangs, C., Lindsten, J., and Ryman, N. (1974). Methylmercury-induced chromosome damage in man. Environmental Research, 7, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Susser, M. (1973). Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies in Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Yerushalmy, J., and Palmer, C. (1959). On the methodology of investigations of etiologic factors in chronic diseases. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 10, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations