causal and non-causal associations biases, confounding, confusion how to decide if a finding is real...

44
Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Upload: leslie-houston

Post on 13-Jan-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Causal and non-causal associations

Biases, confounding, confusion

How to decide if a finding is real

Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Page 2: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Causation

Importance of studying causation

1. Clinical medicine

Advice to patients

Prevention

2. Social/environmental

Compensation

3. Population

Screening prevention

Page 3: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

“Cause”

A factor which, if altered is followed by a change in the frequency or character of a disease.

Probabilistic approach: X is a cause of Y if the probability that Y occurs is increased as a consequence of X.

Problems: risk factor vs cause risk marker vs risk factor

Page 4: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Models

Triangle האפידמיולוגי המשולש

Host המאכסן

Agent המחלה הסביבה Environment מחולל

Page 5: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Web of causation

Page 6: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Association and cause

Explanation Finding

Association

Bias in selection Yes No

or measurement

Chance Likely Unlikely

Confounding Yes No

Cause Cause

Page 7: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Types of association

Positive vs inverse

Linear, exponential, quadratic (U or J shaped)

Two factors:

additive

multiplicative

Effect modification

Page 8: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Relationship between asbestos exposure (particle-years) and relative

risk of lung cancer

Page 9: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test number of categories in early-onset, late-onset and control groups use of marijuana.

Fontes M A et al. BJP 2011;198:442-447

Page 10: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Annual mortality (per 1000 men) from all causes related to alcohol

consumption

Page 11: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Ischaemic heart disease

Page 12: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Age-standardized lung cancer death rates (per 100000 population) in relation to cigarette smoking and occupational

exposure to asbestos dust

Exposure toasbestos

History ofcigarettesmoking

Lung cancerdeath rate per

100000

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

11

58

123

602

Page 13: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

0

2

4

6

8

Black Brown Blonde/red

Psoriatics

Controls

Prevalence of Actinic Keratoses in Psoriatics and Controls by Hair Colour

Effect modification

Odds

ratio

Page 14: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Prevalence of Actinic Keratoses in Psoriatics and Controls by propensity

to sunburn

Effect modification

0

1

2

3

4

5

Never Often/always

Psoriatics

ControlsOdds ratio

Page 15: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Association and cause

Explanation FindingAssociation

Bias in selection Yes Noor measurement

Chance Likely Unlikely

Confounding Yes No

Cause Cause

Page 16: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Definition of bias

“Any process at any stage of inference which tends to produce results or conclusions that differ systematically from the truth”

Page 17: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Stages of research in which bias can occur:

1. In reading-up on the field2. In specifying and selecting the study

sample3. In executing the experimental

maneuvre (or exposure)4. In measuring exposures and outcomes5. In analyzing the data6. In publishing the results

Page 18: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Membership bias

Membership in a group (the employed, joggers, etc…) may imply a degree of health which differs systematically from that of the general population.

Page 19: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Selection bias

Page 20: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Confirmation by randomized trial of observed effect in non-randomized trial: Salk vaccine for poliomyelitis

Type of study Poliomyelitis cases/total

(rate per 100,000)

Odds ratio

(95% CI)

Vaccine Control

Non-randomized

Randomized

60/231902

(26)

57/200745

(28)

391/725173

(54)

142/201229

(71)

0.55 (0.44-0.68)

0.43 (0.32-0.56)

External Validity

Page 21: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Confirmation by randomized trial of observed effect in non-randomized trial: Salk vaccine for poliomyelitis

Type of study Poliomyelitis cases/total

(rate per 100,000)

Odds ratio

(95% CI)

Vaccine Control

Non-randomized

Randomized

60/231902

(26)

57/200745

(28)

391/725173

(54)

142/201229

(71)

0.55 (0.44-0.68)

0.43 (0.32-0.56)

Page 22: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Cumulative mortality from verified colorectal cancer in the control

and screened groups

Page 23: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Cause specific mortality rates (per 1000 person years) in the intervention and control groups by faecal occult blood

testing

Page 24: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Social approval bias

Page 25: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Social approval bias

Intervention- letter, nutrition survey, benefits of fruits and veggies. 5-a day sticker

Control- letter, nutrition survey,

Page 26: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Referral bias

Page 27: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Admission rate (Berkson) bias

When combination of exposure and disease leads to higher rate of hospitalization, the relation between exposure and disease will become distorted in hospital based studies.

Page 28: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Measurement bias/ information bias esp.in case-control studies

a) presence of the outcome directly affects the exposure. E.g. endometrial cancer and estrogen

b) presence of the outcome affects the recollection of the exposure “recall bias”. E.g. birth defects and drug exposure

c) presence of the outcome affects the measurement or recording of the exposure.

Eg DVT and oral contraceptives

Page 29: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Association and cause

Explanation Finding

Association

Bias in selection Yes No

or measurement

Chance Likely Unlikely

Confounding Yes No

Cause Cause

P value

Page 30: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Association and cause

Explanation Finding

Association

Bias in selection Yes No

or measurement

Chance Likely Unlikely

Confounding Yes No

Cause Cause

Page 32: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Confounding: coffee drinking, cigarette smoking, and coronary heart disease

EXPOSURE DISEASE

(coffee drinking) (heart disease)

CONFOUNDING

VARIABLE

(cigarette smoking)

Page 33: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Locations of potential bias in cohort Locations of potential bias in cohort studiesstudies

021657408021657408

021657408021657408

Page 34: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Association and cause

Explanation Finding

Association

Bias in selection Yes No

or measurement

Chance Likely Unlikely

Confounding Yes No

Cause? Cause

Page 35: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Criteria for causation

1. Is there evidence from true experimentation in humans?

2. Is the association strong?

3. Is the association consistent from study to study?

4. Is the temporal association correct?

5. Is there a dose-response gradient?

6. Does the association make biological sense?

7. Is the association specific?

(Adapted from Bradford Hill)

Page 36: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

The isotretinoin dysmorphic syndromeLancet, March 3 1984

Sir, - we describe here a case of human teratogenicity that confirms the need for the drug isotretinoin to be avoided in pregnancy.

Post-mortem examination revealed a dysmorphic syndrome, with malformations of the ears, heart, and brain….This is the 1st case of human isotretinoin teratogenicity to be described in detail.

Page 37: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

The isotretinoin teratogen syndrome

Two infants with prominent frontal bossing, hydrocephalus, microphthalmia, and small malformed, low-set, undifferentiated ears were born to mothers, who had taken isotretinoin in the first trimester of pregnancy. A Dandy-Walker malformation, microcephaly, hypertelorism, small ear canals, cleft palate, small mouth, and congenital heart disease were also observed. Isotretinoin is a potent teratogen in many. Maternal ingestion early in pregnancy, leads to a distinct clinical pattern of anomalies.

JAMA 1984; 251:3267-69.

Page 38: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Retinoic acid, an analogue of vitamin A, is known to be teratogenic in laboratory animals and has recently been implicated in a few clinical case reports. To study the human teratogenicity of this agent, we investigated 154 human pregnancies with fetal exposure to isotretinoin, a retinoid prescribed for severe recalcitrant cystic acne. The outcomes were 95 elective abortions, 26 infants without major malformations, 12 spontaneous abortions, and 21 malformed infants. A subset of 36 of the 154 pregnancies was observed prospectively.

Coherence

Page 39: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

The outcomes in this cohort were 8 spontaneous abortions, 23 normal infants, and 6 malformed infants. Exposure to isotretinoin was associated with an unusually high relative risk for a group of selected major malformation (relative risk = 25.6; 95% CI 11.4-57.5).

Among the 21 malformed infants we found a characteristic pattern of malformation involving craniofacial, cardiac, thymic, and central nervous system structure.

Specificity

Page 40: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Further criterion:

• Reversibility -rarely applicable

Page 41: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Time sincestoppingsmoking(years)

Duration of smoking habits (years)

1-19 20-39 40-49 >50

Men01-45-9>10Women01-45-9>10

1.01.10.40.3

1.01.00.40.4

2.22.11.51.0

2.12.32.00.8

2.82.32.21.6

2.72.11.12.3

3.03.82.82.7

5.27.11.7

Relative risk for developing lung cancer by time since stopping smoking and total duration of

smoking habit

Page 42: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Level Source of EvidenceI Evidence obtained from at least one properly

designed randomized controlled trial

II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization

II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group

II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments (such as the results of the introduction of penicillin treatment in the 1940s) could also be regarded as this type of evidence

III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees

Page 43: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Hierarchy of study methods to assess causation

Page 44: Causal and non-causal associations Biases, confounding, confusion How to decide if a finding is real Ora Paltiel October 26, 2014

Hierarchy of study methods to assess causation

Remember: Evidence based medicine means making decisions on BEST EVIDENCE,

not IDEAL or PERFECT evidence