Variation role of error bias and confounding Raj

Variation: role of error, bias and confounding Raj Bhopal, Bruce and John Usher Professor of Public Health, Public Health Sciences Section, Division of Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH 89 AG Raj. Bhopal@ed. ac. uk

Educational objectives On completion of your studies should understand: l That error is crucially important in applied sciences based on free living populations such as epidemiology l Bias, considered as an error which affects comparison groups unequally, is particularly important in epidemiology l The major causes of error and bias in epidemiology, can be analysed based on the chronology of a research project l Bias in posing the research question, stating hypotheses and choosing the study population are relatively neglected but important topics in epidemiology

Educational objectives l l l Errors and bias in data interpretation and publication are particularly important in epidemiology because of its health policy and health care applications Confounding is the mis-measurement of the relationship between a risk factor and disease and arises in comparisons of groups which differ in ways that affect disease Different epidemiological study designs share most of the problems of error and bias

Exercise: l l Error and bias Reflect on the words error and bias. What is the difference, if any, between error and bias? Why might error and bias be particularly common and important in epidemiology?

Error l l l An error is by definition an act, an assertion, or a belief that deviates from what is right. . but what is right? The true length of a metre is arbitrarily decided by agreeing a definition The difference between a "correct" metre stick and an erroneous one can be accurately measured For health and disease the truth is usually unknown and cannot be defined in the way we define metre Error should be considered as an inevitable and important part of human endeavor Popperian view is that science progresses by the rejection of hypotheses (by falsification) rather than the establishing of so called truths (by verification)

Bias l l A preference or an inclination Bias may be intentional or unintentional In statistics a bias is an error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others Bias in epidemiology can be conceptualised as error which applies unequally to comparison groups.

Error and bias in biology l l l Biological research is difficult because of the complexity and variety of living things Circadian and other natural rhythms cause change Measurement techniques are usually limited by technology, cost or ethical considerations Strict rules restrict what measurement is permissible ethically and what humans are willing to give their consent to Experimental manipulation to test a hypothesis is usually done late

Figure 4. 1 (a) Error is unequal in one of these groups leading to a false interpretation of the pattern of disease - falsely detecting differences (b) Error is unequal in one of these groups leading to a false interpretation of the pattern of disease - here failure to detect differences

Error and bias in epidemiology l l l Error and bias in epidemiology focus on: (a) selection (of population), (b) information (collection, analysis and interpretation of data) and (c) confounding Error and bias is also inherent in the process of developing research questions and hypotheses but is seldom discussed Are questions of sex or racial differences in intelligence, disease, physiology or health biased questions?

The research question, theme or hypothesis l l l Science is done by human beings who often have strong ideas and views They share in the social values and beliefs of their era such as class, racial and sexual prejudice The question "Are men more intelligent (or healthy) than women? " could be considered a biased question

Research question l l Apparently the neutral hypothesis here would be that there are no gender differences in intelligence The underlying values of the researchers may be that men are more intelligent than women Likely to be revealed at the analysis and interpretation stage by biased interpretation It is problematic to describe difference without conveying a sense of superiority and inferiority

The research question l l l Syphilis Study of the US Public Health Service followed up 600 African American men for some 40 years The question: does syphilis have different and, particularly, less serious outcomes in African Americans than European origin Americans? Investigators denied the study subjects treatment even when it was available and curative (penicillin)

Choice of population l l l Known as selection bias Volunteers are a popular choice Volunteers tend to be different in their attitudes, behaviours and health status compared to those who do not volunteer Men have been more often selected than women Investigators are prone to exclude individuals and populations for reasons of convenience, cost or preference rather than for neutral, scientific reasons

Selection bias l l l Selection bias is inevitable, simply because investigators need to make choices Captive populations are popular-some may be fairly representative, e. g. schoolchildren, others not at all, e. g. university students People are also missed either inadvertently or because they actively do not participate Selection bias matters much more in epidemiology than in biologically based medical sciences. Biological factors are usually generalisable between individuals and populations, so there is a prior presumption of generalisability If an anatomist describes the presence of a particular muscle, or cell type, based on one human being it is likely to be present in all human beings (and possibly all mammals)

Non-participation l l l Some subjects chosen for a study do not participate causing selection bias The non-response in good studies is typically 30%-40% Non-responders differ from those who respond Problem is compounded when the nonresponse differs greatly in two populations that are to be compared The effect may be understood if some information is available on those not participating e. g. their age, sex, social circumstances and why they refused Non-response bias is an intrinsic limitation of the survey method and hence of epidemiology

Figure 4. 2 n Ignoring Study populations n Questions harming one population n Ignored population Measuring unequally n Generalising from unrepresentative populations Comparison population

Comparing risk factor-disease outcome relationships in populations which differ (confounding) l l Confounding is a difficult idea to explain and grasp It is the error in the measure of association between a specific risk factor and disease outcome, which arises when there are differences in the comparison populations other than the risk factor under study Confounding is derived from a Latin word meaning to mix up, a useful idea, for confounding mixes up causal and non-causal relationships The potential for it to occur is there whenever the cardinal rule “compare like-with-like” is broken

Exercise: Confounding l l Imagine that a study follows up people who drink alcohol and observes the occurrence of lung cancer A group of people who do not drink and are of the same age and sex provide the comparison group The study finds that lung cancer is more common in alcohol drinkers, i. e. there is an association between alcohol consumption and lung cancer. Did alcohol causes lung cancer?

Confounding l l In what other important ways might the study (alcohol drinking) and comparison (no alcohol drinking) populations be different? Could the association between alcohol and lung cancer be confounded? What might be the confounding variable? First key analysis in all epidemiological studies is to compare the characteristics of the populations under study

Examples of confounding

Figure 4. 3 f th eo se au ec as ise ed f th so e As On so cia fac tion tor bet an wee dt he n the ca us appa al fac rent tor ris k The true cause & confounding variable A statistical but not causal association Apparent but spurious risk factor for disease Disease

Figure 4. 4 ca es us ce an gc lun Sm ing ok Sm ok the ing alc app is as oh are so ol, nt cia an ris ted dv kf ice act with ve or rsa Smoking r Alcohol is statistically but not causally linked to lung cancer Alcohol drinking Lung cancer

Possible actions to control confounding

Measurement errors in epidemiology l l l Information bias Why are measurement errors in epidemiology likely to be more common and more important than in other scientific disciplines - say physics, anatomy, biochemistry or animal physiology? Assessing the presence of disease in living human beings requires a judgement Measuring socio-economic circumstances, ethnic group, cigarette smoking habits or alcohol consumption are complex matters These errors are life-and-death matters, even in epidemiological research

Measurement errors l l l Past exposures will need to be estimated, sometimes from contemporary measures Biological variation needs to be taken into account e. g. blood pressure varies from moment to moment in response to physiological needs related to activity, in a 24 hour (circadian) cycle with lowered pressure in the night, and with the ambient temperature Some variables have natural variation so great that making estimates is extremely difficult, for example, in diet, alcohol consumption, and the level of stress Machine imprecision is also inevitable Inaccurate observation by the investigator or diagnostician

Measurement errors and bias l l Measurement errors which occur unequally in the comparison populations are: -differential misclassification errors or bias -likely to irreversibly destroy a study -will increase the strength of the association in error Non-differential errors or biases, occurring in both comparison populations, are much more likely to occur

l l l Misclassification bias Misclassification error (or bias) occurs when a person is put into the wrong category (or population sub-group), usually as a result of faulty measurement Some people who are hypertensive will be misclassified as normal Some who are not hypertensive will be misclassified as hypertensive The end result in terms of the prevalence of hypertension may be about right The degree to which a measure leads to a correct classification can be quantified using the concepts of sensitivity and specificity - and these are discussed in relation to screening tests In measuring the strength of association between exposures and disease outcomes non-differential misclassification error has an important and not always predictable effect

Non differential misclassification error l l Imagine a study of 20, 000 women, 10, 000 on the contraceptive pill and the rest not Say that over 10 years 20% of those on the pill develop a cardiovascular disease compared to 10% of those not on the pill The rate of disease in the oral contraceptive group is doubled (relative risk = 2) Assume that misclassification in exposure occurs 10% of the time, so that 10% of women actually on the pill were classified as not on the pill, and that 10% who were not on were classified as on the pill

Imaginary study of cardiovascular outcome and pill use : no misclassification

Pill and cardiovascular disease : 10% misclassification of pill use

Misclassification: the pill l The risk of CVD in the "pill users group" with 10% misclassification is 1, 900/10, 000, and in the "not on the pill group" is 1, 100/10, 000, so the relative risk is l Misclassification will, inevitably, also arise in measurement of the disease outcome, further reducing the strength of the association Generally, non-differential misclassification bias lowers the relative risk. This general principle may break down when misclassification occurs in confounding variables as well l l

Analysis and interpretation l l l Usually the potential for data analysis is far greater than that actually done The choices will be informed by the prior interests (and biases) and expertise of the researcher External scrutiny at an early stage by objective advisors of the research protocol could reduce such biases Inclusion of objective, uninvolved people in the research team at the data analysis and interpretation stage is possible but unusual, so, Investigators should ensure their analysis is driven by hypotheses, research questions and an analysis strategy prepared in advance Proposal is that investigators should make public their data questionnaire, the analysis strategy, and other information required to replicate the analysis

Judgement and action l l l The data and interpretation are examined by those who need to make decisions Interpretations, especially those which involve change that may threaten powerful interests, will be contested. Interpretation is a matter of judgement and judgement will depend on the prior values, beliefs and interests of the observer Epidemiologists are not the sole arbiters of theory and data. Epidemiologists, however, have responsibilities for minimising the impact of their own biases and preventing the misinterpretation of data and recommendations by those with vested interests

Study population bias: generalisation l l l Much of epidemiology is concerned with population subgroups and comparisons between them The interpretation rests on the assumption that the results apply, at least, to the whole group as originally chosen if not the whole population Error arises in the inappropriate generalisation of study data to another population

Controlling errors and bias l l l Error control requires awareness and good scientific technique Bias control needs equal attention to error control in all the population sub-groups Error and bias cannot be fully controlled so the most important need is for systematic, cautious and critical interpretation of data

Conclusion l l l Bias is a central issue in epidemiology When epidemiological data are applied to provide health advice to individuals and to shape public health policy, error and bias are especially important I am not aware of an epidemiological theory on why error and bias occur Social sciences research on the nature of science indicates that the scientific endeavour is not wholly objective but open to the influence of society and context The framework provided by the chronology and structure of a research project offers a logical approach to analysis of bias and error

Conclusions l l l l l The main principles are: develop research questions and hypotheses which benefit all the population and will not lead to harm study a representative population measure accurately and with equal care across comparison groups compare like-with-like check for the main findings in subgroups before assuming that inferences and generalisations apply across all groups findings of a single study should rarely be accepted at face value first consider artefact a critical attitude is essential