Bias from self selection and loss to follow-up in prospective cohort studies

被引:0
作者
Guido Biele
Kristin Gustavson
Nikolai Olavi Czajkowski
Roy Miodini Nilsen
Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud
Per Minor Magnus
Camilla Stoltenberg
Heidi Aase
机构
[1] Norwegian Institute of Public Health,
来源
European Journal of Epidemiology | 2019年 / 34卷
关键词
Bias; Self selection; Loss to follow up; Cohort study; Inverse probability weighting; Bayesian estimation; Directed acyclic graphs; ADHD;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Self-selection into prospective cohort studies and loss to follow-up can cause biased exposure-outcome association estimates. Previous investigations illustrated that such biases can be small in large prospective cohort studies. The structural approach to selection bias shows that general statements about bias are not possible for studies that investigate multiple exposures and outcomes, and that inverse probability of participation weighting (IPPW) but not adjustment for participation predictors generally reduces bias from self-selection and loss to follow-up. We propose to substantiate assumptions in structural models of selection bias through calculation of genetic correlations coefficients between participation predictors, outcome, and exposure, and to estimate a lower bound for bias due to self-selection and loss to follow-up by comparing effect estimates from IPP weighted and unweighted analyses. This study used data from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study and the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Using the example of risk factors for ADHD, we find that genetic correlations between participation predictors, exposures, and outcome suggest the presence of bias. The comparison of exposure-outcome associations from regressions with and without IPPW revealed meaningful deviations. Assessment of selection bias for entire multi-exposure multi-outcome cohort studies is not possible. Instead, it has to be assessed and controlled on a case-by-case basis.
引用
收藏
页码:927 / 938
页数:11
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]  
Greenland S(2017)For and against methodologies: Some perspectives on recent causal and statistical inference debates Eur J Epidemiol. 32 3-20
[2]  
Galea S(2007)Participation rates in epidemiologic studies Ann Epidemiol 17 643-653
[3]  
Tracy M(2004)A structural approach to selection bias Epidemiology 15 615-625
[4]  
Hernán MA(2009)Self-selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 23 597-608
[5]  
Hernández-Díaz S(2006)Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology 17 413-418
[6]  
Robins JM(2018)How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 97 407-416
[7]  
Nilsen RM(2016)Evaluation of selection bias in an internet-based study of pregnancy planners Epidemiology 27 98-104
[8]  
Nohr EA(2011)Estimating bias from loss to followup in the Danish National Birth Cohort Epidemiology 22 815-822
[9]  
Frydenberg M(1995)Causal diagrams for empirical research Biometrika 82 669-688
[10]  
Henriksen TB(2010)Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider Int J Epidemiol 39 417-420