Assessment of potential bias from non-participation in a dynamic clinical cohort of long-term childhood cancer survivors: Results from the St. Jude lifetime cohort study

Pediatric Blood and Cancer

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 856-864

  Ojha, Rohit P ^a   Oancea, S Cristina ^a   Ness, Kirsten K ^a   Lanctot, Jennifer Q ^a   Srivastava, D Kumar ^a   Robison, Leslie L ^a   Hudson, Melissa M ^a   Gurney, James G ^a  

^a ST JUDE CHILDREN S RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Cancer survivorship; Epidemiology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CANCER SURVIVOR; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INCOME; LIFESPAN; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEIGHBORHOOD; NONRESPONSE BIAS; PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URBAN AREA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, PEDIATRIC; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELECTION BIAS; SURVIVORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84874979545     PISSN: 15455009     EISSN: 15455017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.24348     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Scheurer ME, Bondy ML, Gurney JG. Epidemiology of childhood cancer. In: Pizzo PA, Poplack DG, editors. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology, 6th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. pp 2-16.
2. Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2012.
3. Hewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E, et al. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
4. Robison LL, Armstrong GT, Boice JD, et al. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: A National Cancer Institute-supported resource for outcome and intervention research. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2308-2318.
5. Hudson MM, Ness KK, Nolan VG, et al. Prospective medical assessment of adults surviving childhood cancer: Study design, cohort characteristics, and feasibility of the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011; 56: 825-836.
6. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004; 15: 615-625.
7. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
8. Savitz D. Interpreting epidemiologic evidence: Strategies for study design and analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
9. Gurney JG, Davis S, Schwartz SM, et al. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in case-control studies. Epidemiology 1995; 6: 31-35.
10. Nohr EA, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, et al. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias? Epidemiology 2006; 17: 413-418.
11. Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17: 643-653.
12. Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 2012; 307: 1805-1806.
13. Landier W, Bhatia S, Eshelman DA, et al. Development of risk-based guidelines for pediatric cancer survivors: The Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines from the Children's Oncology Group Late Effects Committee and Nursing Discipline. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4979-4990.
14. COG. Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines for Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancers. http://www.survivorshipguidelines.org/ Accessed 2012 January 6.
15. ArcGIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgisonline/ Accessed 2012 February 13.
16. American Community Survey. Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com/software/bao/acs-reports.html#population_summary_panel Accessed 2012 February 13.
17. LaMacchia RA, Marx RW, Sobel J. Census blocks and block groups. In: LaMacchia RA, Marx RW, Sobel J, editors. Geographic areas reference manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics; Administration, Bureau of the Census; 1994. Updated 2012.
18. RUCA Data version 2.0. Rural health Research Center http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-data.php Accessed 2012 April 23.
19. Hart LG, Larson EH, Lishner DM. Rural definitions for health policy and research. Am J Public Health 2005; 95: 1149-1155.
20. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
21. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 128-138.
22. Helgesson G, Hansson MG, Ludvigsson J, et al. Practical matters, rather than lack of trust, motivate non-participation in a long-term cohort trial. Pediatr Diabetes 2009; 10: 408-412.
23. Drivsholm T, Eplov LF, Davidsen M, et al. Representativeness in population-based studies: A detailed description of non-response in a Danish cohort study. Scand J Public Health 2006; 34: 623-631.
24. Harald K, Salomaa V, Jousilahti P, et al. Non-participation and mortality in different socioeconomic groups: The FINRISK population surveys in 1972-92. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 449-454.
25. Korkeila K, Suominen S, Ahvenainen J, et al. Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2001; 17: 991-999.
26. 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.
27. Nummela O, Sulander T, Helakorpi S, et al. Register-based data indicated nonparticipation bias in a health study among aging people. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1418-1425.
28. Laaksonen M, Aittomaki A, Lallukka T, et al. Register-based study among employees showed small nonparticipation bias in health surveys and check-ups. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 900-906.
29. Alkerwi A, Sauvageot N, Couffignal S, et al. Comparison of participants and non-participants to the ORISCAV-LUX population-based study on cardiovascular risk factors in Luxembourg. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 80.
30. Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 1977; 106: 184-187.
31. Van Loon AJ, Tijhuis M, Picavet HS, et al. Survey non-response in the Netherlands: Effects on prevalence estimates and associations. Ann Epidemiol 2003; 13: 105-110.
32. Ness KK, Leisenring W, Goodman P, et al. Assessment of selection bias in clinic-based populations of childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009; 52: 379-386.
33. Lash TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2009.
34. Geneletti S, Mason A, Best N. Adjusting for selection effects in epidemiologic studies: Why sensitivity analysis is the only "solution". Epidemiology 2011; 22: 36-39.