Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples.

Many authors have pointed out that relative-risk estimates derived from ecologic data are vulnerable to biases not found in estimates derived from individual-level data. Nevertheless, biases in ecologic studies still are often dealt with in the same manner as biases in other observational studies, and so are not given adequate treatment. This commentary reviews and illustrates some of the more recent findings about bias in ecologic estimates. Special attention is given to problems of ecologic confounder control when individual risks follow a nonlinear model, and to misconceptions about ecologic bias that have appeared in the literature.

[1]  W. S. Robinson Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. , 1950, International journal of epidemiology.

[2]  Glenn Firebaugh,et al.  A Rule for Inferring Individual-Level Relationships from Aggregate Data , 1978 .

[3]  R. Doll,et al.  Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers. , 1978, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[4]  V. Beral,et al.  On the estimation of relative risk from vital statistical data. , 1979, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[5]  L. Polissar The effect of migration on comparison of disease rates in geographic studies in the United States. , 1980, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  H. White Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models , 1982 .

[7]  H. Morgenstern Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research. , 1982, American journal of public health.

[8]  D B Rubin,et al.  Difficulties with regression analyses of age-adjusted rates. , 1984, Biometrics.

[9]  D Hémon,et al.  Comparison of relative risks obtained in ecological and individual studies: some methodological considerations. , 1987, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  The ecological fallacy. , 1988, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  S Greenland,et al.  Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. , 1989, International journal of epidemiology.

[12]  B. Cohen Ecological versus case-control studies for testing a linear-no threshold dose-response relationship. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  B. Cohen,et al.  A test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis. , 1990, Environmental research.

[14]  S. Richardson,et al.  Ecological bias and confounding. , 1990, International journal of epidemiology.

[15]  M E Halloran,et al.  Direct and indirect effects in vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. , 1991, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  H. Morgenstern,et al.  Neither within-region nor cross-regional independence of exposure and covariates prevents ecological bias. , 1991, International journal of epidemiology.

[17]  S. D. Walter,et al.  The ecologic method in the study of environmental health. II. Methodologic issues and feasibility. , 1991, Environmental health perspectives.

[18]  S. Richardson,et al.  ECOLOGICAL BIAS AND LINEAR DOSE RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP , 1991 .

[19]  S. Greenland,et al.  The effects of nondifferential confounder misclassification in ecologic studies. , 1992, Epidemiology.

[20]  B. Cohen Problems in ecological studies. , 1992, International Journal of Epidemiology.

[21]  S. Greenland,et al.  Effects of nondifferential exposure misclassification in ecologic studies. , 1992, American Journal of Epidemiology.

[22]  S. Greenland,et al.  Correcting for Non‐Differential Misclassification in Ecologic Analyses , 1993 .

[23]  B. Cohen,et al.  Divergent biases in ecologic and individual level studies. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.