Selection bias and patterns of confounding in cohort studies: The case of the NINFEA web-based birth cohort

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 66, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 976-981

  Pizzi, Costanza ^a,b   De Stavola, Bianca L ^b   Pearce, Neil ^b,c   Lazzarato, Fulvio ^a   Ghiotti, Paola ^d   Merletti, Franco ^a   Richiardi, Lorenzo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^d Department of Health ^*  (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTRACEPTIVE USE; DATA SET; ORGANIC ACID; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POPULATION ESTIMATION; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RISK FACTOR; SELECTION;

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR;

COHORT STUDIES; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INTERNET; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK FACTORS; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84868671022     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2011-200065     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004;15:615-25.
2. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Distinguishing Selection Bias from Confounding. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008:136-7.
3. Clarisse B, Nikasinovic L, Poinsard R, et al. The Paris prospective birth cohort study: which design and who participates? Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22: 203-10.
4. Nilsen RM, Vollset SE, Gjessing HK, et al. Self-selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009;23:597-608.
5. Nohr EA, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, et al. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology 2006;17:413-18.
6. Goldberg M, Chastang JF, Leclerc A, et al. Socioeconomic, demographic, occupational, and health factors associated with participation in a long-term epidemiologic survey: a prospective study of the French GAZEL cohort and its target population. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:373-84.
7. Heilbrun LK, Ross PD, Wasnich RD, et al. Characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents in a prospective study of osteoporosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:233-9.
8. Jackson R, Chambless LE, Yang K, et al. Differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a multicenter community-based study vary by gender ethnicity. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:1441-6.
9. Macera CA, Jackson KL, Davis DR, et al. Patterns of non-response to a mail survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1427-30.
10. Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R. The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators. Ann Epidemiol 1996;6:498-506.
11. Walker M, Shaper AG, Cook DG. Non-participation and mortality in a prospective study of cardiovascular disease. J Epidemiol Community Health 1987;41:295-9.
12. Richiardi L, Baussano I, Vizzini L, et al. Feasibility of recruiting a birth cohort through the Internet: the experience of the NINFEA cohort. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22:831-7.
13. Glymour MM. Using causal diagrams to understand common problems in social epidemiology. In: Oakes JM, Kaufman JS, eds. Methods in Social Epidemiology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
14. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 1999;10:37-48.
15. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
16. Assessorato della sanità Regione Piemonte. Nascere in Piemonte-Executive Summary. Torino, 2007. www.regione.piemonte.it/sanita/program_sanita/dip_ materno_inf/dwd/nas_piem_sum.pdf
17. Ministero del Lavoro della Salute e delle Politiche Sociali-Settore Salute. Certificato di Assistenza al Parto (CeDAP); Analisi dell'evento Nascita-Anno. Roma, 2006. www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_1120_allegato.pdf
18. Pizzi C, De Stavola B, Merletti F, et al. Sample selection and validity of exposureedisease association estimates in cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65:407-11.
19. VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes, and the properties of conditioning on a common effect. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:1096-104.
20. Smith GD, Lawlor DA, Harbord R, et al. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007;4:e352.