Heterogeneity in fecundability studies: issues and modelling

被引:20
作者
Ecochard, R [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lyon 1, CNRS, Lab Biometrie & Biol Evolut, UMR 5558,Dept Biostat Hospices Civils Lyon, F-69424 Lyon 03, France
关键词
D O I
10.1191/0962280206sm436oa
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Modelization of fecundability stepped recently from demography and population-based contexts to reproductive biology and treatment of infertility. This created a strong call for flexibility and robustness. Indeed, explained and unexplained heterogeneities are non-negligible sources of bias that result in false conclusions as to the determinants of fertility or to the success rates of reproductive techniques, among other examples. There are two main sources of heterogeneity: biological heterogeneity and heterogeneity of sexual behaviour. A uniform presentation of time-to-pregnancy and Barrett-Marshall models is proposed to enlighten their similarities and differences in modelling heterogeneity of fecundability, Mixed models for fecundability studies are presented as tools to allow for unexplained heterogeneity and to quantify heterogeneity of the effect of observed factors and variability of size of this unexplained heterogeneity between subpopulations. Some criteria for the modelling strategy in fecundability studies are suggested with emphasis on the unit-treatment additivity criterion. The strong and complex selection process resulting from heterogeneity is described as well as the selection and cross-selection processes of observed and unobserved fecundability factors. Consequences regarding data collection and statistical inference are discussed. In the current context, a consensus setting general rules for data collection and statistical analysis would be useful to compare the results and increase the reliability of these results ill medical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:141 / 160
页数:20
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   USE OF TIME TO PREGNANCY TO STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES [J].
BAIRD, DD ;
WILCOX, AJ ;
WEINBERG, CR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1986, 124 (03) :470-480
[2]  
BARRETT JC, 1969, POP STUD-J DEMOG, V23, P455, DOI 10.1080/00324728.1969.10405297
[3]   Mucus observations in the fertile window: a better predictor of conception than timing of intercourse [J].
Bigelow, JL ;
Dunson, DB ;
Stanford, JB ;
Ecochard, R ;
Gnoth, C ;
Colombo, B .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2004, 19 (04) :889-892
[4]  
CLAYTON DG, 1997, 1 SEATTL S BIOST SUR, P99
[5]  
Colombo B., 2000, DEMOGR RES, V3, P5, DOI DOI 10.4054/DEMRES.2000.3.5
[6]   INTERACTION [J].
COX, DR ;
ATKINSON, AC ;
BOX, GEP ;
DARROCH, JN ;
SPJOTVOLL, E ;
WAHRENDORF, J .
INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL REVIEW, 1984, 52 (01) :1-31
[7]   Interpreting the beta geometric in comparative fecundability studies [J].
Crouchley, R ;
Dassios, A .
BIOMETRICS, 1998, 54 (01) :161-+
[8]   The effect of pesticide exposure on time to pregnancy [J].
Curtis, KM ;
Savitz, DA ;
Weinberg, CR ;
Arbuckle, TE .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1999, 10 (02) :112-117
[9]  
Dominik R, 2001, STAT MED, V20, P3279
[10]   A Bayesian model for fecundability and sterility [J].
Dunson, DB ;
Zhou, HB .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (452) :1054-1062