Cohort studies with low baseline response may not be generalisable to populations with different exposure distributions

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 223-227

  Jöckel, Karl Heinz ^a   Stang, Andreas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bias; Cohort studies; Interaction; Response; Susceptibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME VARIABLE; POPULATION EXPOSURE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SMOKING; VALIDATION STUDY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SMOKING;

EID: 84877875247     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-013-9782-2     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Day N. Commentary: how small is small? Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:274-5.
2. Gaziano JM. The evolution of population science: advent of the mega cohort. JAMA. 2010;304:2288-9.
3. Burton PR, Hansell AL, Fortier I, et al. Size matters: just how big is BIG? Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:263-73.
4. Chen Z, Chen J, Collins R, et al. China Kadoorie Biobank of 0.5 million people: survey methods, baseline characteristics and long-term follow-up. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:1652-66.
5. Collins R. What makes UK Biobank special? Lancet. 2012;379:1173-4.
6. Sorlie P, Wei GS. Population-based cohort studies: still relevant? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2010-3.
7. Manolio TA, Collins R. Enhancing the feasibility of large cohort studies. JAMA. 2010;304:2290-1.
8. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 2004;328:1519.
9. Manolio TA, Weis BK, Cowie CC, et al. New models for large prospective studies: is there a better way? Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:859-66.
10. Stang A, Jöckel KH. Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:204-10.
11. Rothman KJ. Causes. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104:587-92.
12. Greenland S, Lash TL, Rothman KJ. Concepts of interaction. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 71-83.