ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2008
Problems in using incidence to analyze risk factors in follow-up studies.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant-Based Diets and the Incidence of Asthma Symptoms among Elderly Women, and the Mediating Role of Body Mass Index.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Residential Proximity to Urban Play Spaces and Childhood Overweight and Obesity in Barcelona, Spain: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Healthy diet associated with better asthma outcomes in elderly women of the French Asthma-E3N study.European journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Article
- Cardiovascular and metabolic influences of fetal smoke exposure.European journal of epidemiology · 2011Review
- New studies, technology, and the progress of epidemiology.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
- The Shanghai Changfeng Study: a community-based prospective cohort study of chronic diseases among middle-aged and elderly: objectives and design.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
- The Generation R Study: design and cohort update 2010.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
- Early influences on cardiovascular and renal development.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Review
- Prevalence, incidence and persistence of anti-asthma medication use in 2- to 29-year-olds: a nationwide prescription study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
- The Rotterdam Study: 2010 objectives and design update.European journal of epidemiology · 2009Article
- Recent trends in cardiovascular epidemiology.European journal of epidemiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most common practice to analyze epidemiological follow-up studies is to analyze risk factors of new, i.e. incident, cases of disease. However, analysis of incidence assumes that diseases exist in true dichotomies, which is unlikely to be true. It has also recently been shown that in many typical situations it is very difficult to separate the association between risk factors of disease at baseline and during follow-up using analyses of incidence. Situation is especially problematic for diseases that have large misclassification and low incidence, like asthma. We suggest that reliance on analysis of incidence may be a major obstacle into discovering causes of such disease. Only with greater attention into how to define and how to analyze prospective studies are we likely to learn sufficiently of risk factors of such disease to finally arrive at means for their prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.