Bias in calculation of attributable fractions using relative risks from non-smokers only
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
i

Superseded

This Document Has Been Replaced By:

i

Retired

This Document Has Been Retired

i

Up-to-date Information

This is the latest update:

Bias in calculation of attributable fractions using relative risks from non-smokers only
Filetype[PDF-95.95 KB]


Details:
  • Alternative Title:
    Epidemiology
  • Personal Author:
    Flegal, Katherine M.
  • Description:
    Studies of weight and mortality sometimes state that the mortality relative risks for obesity from nonsmokers are valid estimates of the relative risks for obesity in both smokers and nonsmokers. Extending this idea, several influential articles have used relative risks for obesity from nonsmokers and attributable fraction methods for unadjusted risks to estimate attributable fractions of deaths in the entire population (smokers and nonsmokers combined). However, stratification by smoking is a form of adjustment for confounding. Simplified examples show that the use of relative risks from only 1 stratum to estimate attributable fractions, without incorporating data on the stratification variable, gives incorrect results for the entire population. Even if the mortality relative risks for obesity from nonsmokers are indeed valid in both smokers and nonsmokers, these relative risks nonetheless need to be treated as adjusted relative risks for the purpose of calculating attributable fractions for the whole sample.
  • Subject:
  • Pubmed ID:
    25210928
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4731856
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Funding:
    CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
  • Collection(s):
    CDC Public Access
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:
No Related Documents.

You May Also Like:

  1. Filetype[PDF - 187.02 KB]
    Personal Author:
    Levine, Beverly
    Published Date:
    Dec 15 2006
    Source:
    Prev Chronic Dis. 2007; 4(1).
    Description:
    Recent controversy over the disagreement of population attributable fraction estimates for the obesity-total mortality relation has made the concept of attributable fraction visible in both scientific and popular news. Most of the attention in writin...
    File Type:
    Filetype[PDF - 187.02 KB]
  2. Filetype[PDF - 286.83 KB]
    Personal Author:
    Johnson, Candice Y.; Flanders, W. Dana; Strickland, Matthew J.; Honein, Margaret A.; Howards, Penelope P.;
    Published Date:
    Nov 2014
    Source:
    Epidemiology. 25(6):902-909.
    Description:
    BackgroundResults of bias analyses for exposure misclassification are dependent on assumptions made during analysis. We describe how adjustment for misclassification is affected by incorrect assumptions about whether sensitivity and specificity are t...
    File Type:
    Filetype[PDF - 286.83 KB]
  3. Filetype[PDF - 1.01 MB]
    Personal Author:
    Grandjean, P
    Published Date:
    1999 Nov-Dec
    Source:
    Public Health Rep. 114(6):512-515
    Description:
    Images
    File Type:
    Filetype[PDF - 1.01 MB]
  4. Filetype[PDF - 81.87 KB]
    Personal Author:
    Harrow, Jeffrey J
    Published Date:
    Mar 15 2005
    Source:
    Prev Chronic Dis. 2005; 2(2).
    File Type:
    Filetype[PDF - 81.87 KB]
  5. Filetype[PDF - 212.44 KB]
    Personal Author:
    Agopian, A. J.; Tinker, Sarah C.; Lupo, Philip J.; Canfield, Mark A.; Mitchell, Laura E.;
    Corporate Authors:
    National Birth Defects Prevention Study
    Published Date:
    Jan 2013
    Source:
    Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 97(1):42-46
    Description:
    BACKGROUNDRecognized risk factors for neural tube defects (NTDs) poorly predict population-level NTD risk. However, the proportion of NTDs that can be attributed to these risk factors is uncertain.METHODSTo determine the proportion of NTD cases that ...
    File Type:
    Filetype[PDF - 212.44 KB]