ArticleBMC public health2020
Can the validity of a cohort be improved by reweighting based on register data? Evidence from the Swedish MDC study.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can non-participants in a follow-up be used to draw conclusions about incidences and prevalences in the full population invited at baseline? An investigation based on the Swedish MDC cohort.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Examining the continuum of resistance model in two population-based screening studies in Sweden.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn any study with voluntary participation, self-selection risks leading to invalid conclusions. If the determinants of selection are observed, it is however possible to restore the parameters of interest by reweighting the sample to match the population, but this approach has seldom been applied in epidemiological research.
methodsWe reweighted the Malmö Diet and Cancer (MDC) study based on population register data on background variables, including socio-demographics and hospital admissions for both participants and the background population. Following individuals from baseline in 1991-1996 and at most until 2016, we studied mortality (all-cause, cancer, and CVD), incidences (cancer and CVD), and associations between these outcomes and background variables. Results from the unweighted and reweighted participant sample were compared with those from the background population.
resultsMortality was substantially lower in participants than in the background population, but reweighting the sample helped only little to make the numbers similar to those in the background population. For incidences and associations, numbers were generally similar between participants and the background population already without reweighting, rendering reweighting unnecessary.
conclusionReweighting samples based on an extensive range of sociodemographic characteristics and previous hospitalizations does not necessarily yield results that are valid for the population as a whole. In the case of MDC, there appear to be important factors related to both mortality and selection into the study that are not observable in registry data, making it difficult to obtain accurate numbers on population mortality based on cohort participants. These issues seem less relevant for incidences and associations, however. Overall, our results suggest that representativeness must be judged on a case-by-case basis.
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.