Cargando…

Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?

Attrition is a potential source of bias in cohort studies. Although attrition may be inevitable in cohort studies of older people, there is little empirical evidence as to whether bias due to such attrition is also inevitable. Anonymised primary care data, routinely collected in clinical practice an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lacey, Rosie J., Jordan, Kelvin P., Croft, Peter R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24386313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083948
_version_ 1782297369758400512
author Lacey, Rosie J.
Jordan, Kelvin P.
Croft, Peter R.
author_facet Lacey, Rosie J.
Jordan, Kelvin P.
Croft, Peter R.
author_sort Lacey, Rosie J.
collection PubMed
description Attrition is a potential source of bias in cohort studies. Although attrition may be inevitable in cohort studies of older people, there is little empirical evidence as to whether bias due to such attrition is also inevitable. Anonymised primary care data, routinely collected in clinical practice and independent of any cohort research study, represents an ideal unselected comparison dataset with which to compare primary care data from consenting responders to a cohort study. Our objective was to use this method as a novel means to assess if (i) responders at follow-up stages in a cohort study remain representative of responders at baseline and (ii) attrition biases estimates of longitudinal associations. We compared primary care consultation morbidities and prescription prevalences among circa 32,000 patients aged 50+ who contribute to an anonymised general practice database (Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA)) with those from patients aged 50+ in the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP) cohort, United Kingdom (2002–2008; n = 16,159). 8,197 (51%) persons responded to the NorStOP baseline survey and consented to medical record review. 5,121 and 3,311 responded at 3- and 6-year follow-ups. Differences in consulting prevalence of non-musculoskeletal morbidities between NorStOP responders and CiPCA comparison population did not increase over the two follow-up points except for ischaemic heart disease. Differences observed at baseline for osteoarthritis-related consultations were generally unchanged at the two follow-ups (standardised prevalence ratios for osteoarthritis (1.09–1.13) and joint pain (1.12–1.23)). Age and gender adjusted associations between baseline consultation for chronic morbidity and future new osteoarthritis and related consultations were similar in CiPCA (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 1.40; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.34,1.47) and NorStOP 6-year responders (1.32; 1.15,1.51). There was little evidence that responders at follow-ups represented any further selection bias to that present at baseline. Attrition in cohort studies of older people does not inevitably indicate bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3875525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38755252014-01-02 Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status? Lacey, Rosie J. Jordan, Kelvin P. Croft, Peter R. PLoS One Research Article Attrition is a potential source of bias in cohort studies. Although attrition may be inevitable in cohort studies of older people, there is little empirical evidence as to whether bias due to such attrition is also inevitable. Anonymised primary care data, routinely collected in clinical practice and independent of any cohort research study, represents an ideal unselected comparison dataset with which to compare primary care data from consenting responders to a cohort study. Our objective was to use this method as a novel means to assess if (i) responders at follow-up stages in a cohort study remain representative of responders at baseline and (ii) attrition biases estimates of longitudinal associations. We compared primary care consultation morbidities and prescription prevalences among circa 32,000 patients aged 50+ who contribute to an anonymised general practice database (Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA)) with those from patients aged 50+ in the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP) cohort, United Kingdom (2002–2008; n = 16,159). 8,197 (51%) persons responded to the NorStOP baseline survey and consented to medical record review. 5,121 and 3,311 responded at 3- and 6-year follow-ups. Differences in consulting prevalence of non-musculoskeletal morbidities between NorStOP responders and CiPCA comparison population did not increase over the two follow-up points except for ischaemic heart disease. Differences observed at baseline for osteoarthritis-related consultations were generally unchanged at the two follow-ups (standardised prevalence ratios for osteoarthritis (1.09–1.13) and joint pain (1.12–1.23)). Age and gender adjusted associations between baseline consultation for chronic morbidity and future new osteoarthritis and related consultations were similar in CiPCA (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 1.40; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.34,1.47) and NorStOP 6-year responders (1.32; 1.15,1.51). There was little evidence that responders at follow-ups represented any further selection bias to that present at baseline. Attrition in cohort studies of older people does not inevitably indicate bias. Public Library of Science 2013-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3875525/ /pubmed/24386313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083948 Text en © 2013 Lacey et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lacey, Rosie J.
Jordan, Kelvin P.
Croft, Peter R.
Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title_full Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title_fullStr Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title_full_unstemmed Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title_short Does Attrition during Follow-Up of a Population Cohort Study Inevitably Lead to Biased Estimates of Health Status?
title_sort does attrition during follow-up of a population cohort study inevitably lead to biased estimates of health status?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24386313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083948
work_keys_str_mv AT laceyrosiej doesattritionduringfollowupofapopulationcohortstudyinevitablyleadtobiasedestimatesofhealthstatus
AT jordankelvinp doesattritionduringfollowupofapopulationcohortstudyinevitablyleadtobiasedestimatesofhealthstatus
AT croftpeterr doesattritionduringfollowupofapopulationcohortstudyinevitablyleadtobiasedestimatesofhealthstatus