This paper reviews the sources of apparent time trends in effect. Apparent changes in effect may arise from changes in covariate distributions, background rates, exposure distribution, measurement quality, or selection factors. As with time trends in rates, time trends in effect must have at least one of these sources, since time itself has no effect. If background incidence is changing, however, time trends in effect become dependent on choice of effect measure, and interpretation must take this into account. Evidence that a trend arises from age-, cohort-, or period-related phenomena can indicate the relative plausibility of different explanations of the trend. Conversely, the relative plausibility of each explanation may indicate whether the trend is most appropriately viewed over the axis of age, birth cohort, or calendar time. Nevertheless, studies of short duration relative to an apparent trend (such as most case-control studies) must invoke strong assumptions to justify focusing on a particular axis. Illustrations are given from studies of electronic fetal monitoring and of smoking and lung cancer.
[1]
S Greenland,et al.
Multivariate estimation of exposure-specific incidence from case-control studies.
,
1981,
Journal of chronic diseases.
[2]
S Greenland,et al.
Effect of fetal monitoring on neonatal death rates.
,
1978,
The New England journal of medicine.
[3]
H Checkoway,et al.
Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk.
,
1977,
American journal of epidemiology.
[4]
S. Greenland,et al.
Correcting for misclassification in two-way tables and matched-pair studies.
,
1983,
International journal of epidemiology.
[5]
R Neutra,et al.
Control of confounding in the assessment of medical technology.
,
1980,
International journal of epidemiology.
[6]
A. Whittemore.
The age distribution of human cancer for carcinogenic exposures of varying intensity.
,
1977,
American journal of epidemiology.