Ecologic versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologicestimates of contextual health effects

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 1343-1350

  Greenland, Sander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggregate studies; Confounding; Contextual studies; Ecologic fallacy; Ecologic studies; Environmental health; Epidemiology; Multilevel studies; Relative risk; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; HEALTH RISK; MEDICAL GEOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY;

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0035711683     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/30.6.1343     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. The ecological fallacy
2. Evaluation of methods for ecological inference
3. Estimation of population exposure in ecological studies
4. Ecologic studies
5. Assessing group effects
6. Multi-level analysis in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes
7. Design and analysis of multilevel analytic studies with applications to a study of air pollution
8. Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology
9. Health-related behaviour in context: A multilevel modeling approach
10. Context, composition and heterogeneity: Using multilevel models in health research
11. A review of multilevel theory for ecologic analysis
12. The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: The potential misuse of a concept and the consequences
13. Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health
14. The ecological effects of individual exposures and nonlinear disease dynamics in populations
15. A rule for inferring individual-level relationships from aggregate data
16. Risk indicators of breast and cervical cancer on ecologic and individual levels
17. Ecologic studies-biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples
18. Accepting the limits of ecologic studies
19. Ecological analysis of intended treatment effects: Caveat emptor
20. The future of ecological inference (letter)
21. Review of 'A solution to the ecological inference problem'
22. Review of 'A solution to the ecological inference problem'
23. Reply to King (letter)
24. An alternative to ecological correlation
25. Ecological versus case-control studies for testing a linear-no-threshold dose-response relationship
26. In defense of ecological studies for testing a linear no-threshold theory
27. Re: Parallel analyses of individual and ecologic data residential radon, cofactors, and lung cancer in Sweden (letter)
28. The logic in ecological
29. The modifiable area unit problem
30. Insights on bias and information in group-level studies
31. Ecological regression and voting rights (with discussion)
32. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification
33. Neither within-region nor cross-regional independence of covariates prevents ecological bias (letter)
34. Ecological bias and confounding (letter)
35. Ecologic biases
36. Assessment of ecologic regression in the study of lung cancer and indoor radon
37. Parallel analyses of individual and ecologic data on residential radon, cofactors, and lung cancer in Sweden
38. The authors reply (letter)
39. If the assumption fits: A comment on the King ecologic inference solution
40. Review of 'Ecological inference in public health'
41. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects
42. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference
43. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference
44. Some alternatives to ecological correlation
45. Towards a formal theory of causation in ecologic and multilevel studies
46. The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality
47. Comparison of relative risks obtained in ecological and individual studies: Some methodological considerations
48. Proportional hazards models for average data for groups
49. Aggregate data studies of disease risk factors
50. Biases in ecological studies: Utility of including within-area distribution of confounders
51. Overcoming biases and misconceptions in ecologic studies
52. Validity of international, time trend, and migrant studies of dietary factors and disease risk
53. Regional and urban-suburban differentials in coronary heart disease mortality and risk factor prevalence
54. On the reliability and precision of within- And between-population estimates of relative rate parameters
55. Ecological inference for 2 × 2 tables
56. The role of ecologic analysis in studies of the etiology of disease: A discussion with reference to large bowel cancer
57. The effect of migration on comparison of disease rates in geographic studies in the United States
58. When should epidemiologic regressions use random coefficients?
59. Difficulties with regression analyses of age-adjusted rates
60. Effects of nondifferential exposure misclassification in ecologic studies
61. Some surprising effects of measurement error in an aggregate data estimator
62. The effects of nondifferential confounder misclassification in ecologic studies
63. A statistical framework for ecological and aggregate studies
64. Ecologic study