Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22047823›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2011

Lagging exposure information in cumulative exposure-response analyses.

David B Richardson, Stephen R Cole, Haitao Chu, Bryan Langholz

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Patterns of statin initiation and continuation in patients with breast or colorectal cancer, towards end-of-life.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Glucocorticoid prescriptions and breast cancer recurrence: a Danish nationwide prospective cohort study.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2014
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David B RichardsonDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. david.richardson@unc.edu
Stephen R Cole
Haitao Chu
Bryan Langholz
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa A. Troester · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Cohort analysis methods for occupational cancer studiesR01CA117841 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID B · 2007 to 2012
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA117841NCI NIH HHS R01-CA117841NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lagging exposure information is often undertaken to allow for a latency period in cumulative exposure-disease analyses. The authors first consider bias and confidence interval coverage when using the standard approaches of fitting models under several lag assumptions and selecting the lag that maximizes either the effect estimate or model goodness of fit. Next, they consider bias that occurs when the assumption that the latency period is a fixed constant does not hold. Expressions were derived for bias due to misspecification of lag assumptions, and simulations were conducted. Finally, the authors describe a method for joint estimation of parameters describing an exposure-response association and the latency distribution. Analyses of associations between cumulative asbestos exposure and lung cancer mortality among textile workers illustrate this approach. Selecting the lag that maximizes the effect estimate may lead to bias away from the null; selecting the lag that maximizes model goodness of fit may lead to confidence intervals that are too narrow. These problems tend to increase as the within-person exposure variation diminishes. Lagging exposure assignment by a constant will lead to bias toward the null if the distribution of latency periods is not a fixed constant. Direct estimation of latency periods can minimize bias and improve confidence interval coverage.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsResearch DesignEnvironmental ExposureHumansLung NeoplasmsModels, StatisticalRadonTime FactorsRadon

Identifiers

PMID22047823
PMCPMC3276301
OpenAlexW2167260122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.