A hierarchical step-model for causation of bias-evaluating cancer treatment with epidemiological methods

As epidemiological methods are used increasingly to evaluate the effects of cancer treatment, guidelines for the application of such methods in clinical research settings are necessary. Towards this end, we present a hierarchical step-model for causation of bias, which depicts a real-life study as departing from a perfect setting and proceeding step-wise towards a calculated, often adjusted, effect-parameter. Within this model, a specific error (which influences the effect-measure according to one of four sets of rules) is introduced on one (and only one) of the model's four steps. This hierarchical step-model for causation of bias identifies all sources of bias in a study, each of which depicts one or several errors which can be further categorized into one of the model's four steps. Acceptance of this model has implications for ascertaining the degree to which a study effectively evaluates the effects of cancer treatment (level of scientific evidence).

[1]  J. Robins,et al.  A Structural Approach to Selection Bias , 2004, Epidemiology.

[2]  M. Hernán.  A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[3]  M. Hernán,et al.  Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. , 2002, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  S. Schneeweiss,et al.  Causation of Bias: The Episcope , 2001, Epidemiology.

[5]  I. Olkin,et al.  Models for estimating the number of unpublished studies. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  J. Adolfsson,et al.  Bias due to observation of different parts of a nonconstant hazard curve over time. , 1996, Urology.

[7]  S. Norell,et al.  Workbook of Epidemiology , 1995 .

[8]  S Greenland,et al.  Summarization, smoothing, and inference in epidemiologic analysis , 1993, Scandinavian journal of social medicine.

[9]  D. Leon.  Failed or misleading adjustment for confounding , 1993, The Lancet.

[10]  T. Mertens.  Estimating the effects of misclassification , 1993, The Lancet.

[11]  M. Datta.  You cannot exclude the explanation you have not considered , 1993, The Lancet.

[12]  G. Steineck,et al.  Indication for treatment can introduce bias in observational studies of surgical treatment. , 1993, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[13]  Fiona Green.  Cardiovascular Diseases: Genetics, Epidemiology, and Prevention , 1992 .

[14]  J. Adolfsson,et al.  'Local recurrence' and 'disease-free survival'. Doubtful parameters when comparing non-randomized studies of prostate cancer. , 1991, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[15]  S Greenland,et al.  Modeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis. , 1989, American journal of public health.

[16]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Theoretical Epidemiology: Principles of Occurrence Research in Medicine , 1986 .

[17]  O. Miettinen,et al.  Design options in epidemiologic research. An update. , 1982, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[18]  Miettinen Os,et al.  Causal and preventive interdependence. Elementary principles. , 1982 .

[19]  M Zelen,et al.  Some pitfalls in the evaluation of screening programs. , 1969, Archives of environmental health.

[20]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Lead time gained by diagnostic screening for breast cancer. , 1968, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  Measuring Disease Occurrence and Causal Effects , 2007 .

[22]  A. Ahlbom,et al.  A comprehensive clinical epidemiological theory based on the concept of the source person-time and four distinct study stages. , 1998, Acta oncologica.

[23]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Epidemiologic analyses of causation: the unlearned scientific lessons of randomized trials. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  H. Adami.  What can epidemiological methods mean to surgical research? , 1988, Upsala journal of medical sciences.

[25]  D. Sackett.  Bias in analytic research. , 1979, Journal of chronic diseases.