Cargando…

Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare established associations between risk factors and mortality in UK Biobank, a study with an exceptionally low rate of response to its baseline survey, against those from representative studies that have conventional response rates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study alongside indi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batty, G David, Gale, Catharine R, Kivimäki, Mika, Deary, Ian J, Bell, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32051121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m131
_version_ 1783527618474147840
author Batty, G David
Gale, Catharine R
Kivimäki, Mika
Deary, Ian J
Bell, Steven
author_facet Batty, G David
Gale, Catharine R
Kivimäki, Mika
Deary, Ian J
Bell, Steven
author_sort Batty, G David
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare established associations between risk factors and mortality in UK Biobank, a study with an exceptionally low rate of response to its baseline survey, against those from representative studies that have conventional response rates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study alongside individual participant meta-analysis of other cohort studies. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Analytical sample of 499 701 people (response rate 5.5%) in analyses in UK Biobank; pooled data from the Health Surveys for England (HSE) and the Scottish Health Surveys (SHS), including 18 studies and 89 895 people (mean response rate 68%). Both study populations were linked to the same nationwide mortality registries, and the baseline age range was aligned at 40-69 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Death from cardiovascular disease, selected malignancies, and suicide. To quantify the difference between hazard ratios in the two studies, a ratio of the hazard ratios was used with HSE-SHS as the referent. RESULTS: Risk factor levels and mortality rates were typically more favourable in UK Biobank participants relative to the HSE-SHS consortium. For the associations between risk factors and mortality endpoints, however, close agreement was seen between studies. Based on 14 288 deaths during an average of 7.0 years of follow-up in UK Biobank and 7861 deaths over 10 years of mortality surveillance in HSE-SHS, for cardiovascular disease mortality, for instance, the age and sex adjusted hazard ratio for ever having smoked cigarettes (versus never) was 2.04 (95% confidence interval 1.87 to 2.24) in UK Biobank and 1.99 (1.78 to 2.23) in HSE-SHS, yielding a ratio of hazard ratios close to unity (1.02, 0.88 to 1.19). The overall pattern of agreement between studies was essentially unchanged when results were compared separately by sex and when baseline years and censoring dates were aligned. CONCLUSION: Despite a very low response rate, risk factor associations in the UK Biobank seem to be generalisable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7190071
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71900712020-05-01 Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis Batty, G David Gale, Catharine R Kivimäki, Mika Deary, Ian J Bell, Steven BMJ Research OBJECTIVE: To compare established associations between risk factors and mortality in UK Biobank, a study with an exceptionally low rate of response to its baseline survey, against those from representative studies that have conventional response rates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study alongside individual participant meta-analysis of other cohort studies. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Analytical sample of 499 701 people (response rate 5.5%) in analyses in UK Biobank; pooled data from the Health Surveys for England (HSE) and the Scottish Health Surveys (SHS), including 18 studies and 89 895 people (mean response rate 68%). Both study populations were linked to the same nationwide mortality registries, and the baseline age range was aligned at 40-69 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Death from cardiovascular disease, selected malignancies, and suicide. To quantify the difference between hazard ratios in the two studies, a ratio of the hazard ratios was used with HSE-SHS as the referent. RESULTS: Risk factor levels and mortality rates were typically more favourable in UK Biobank participants relative to the HSE-SHS consortium. For the associations between risk factors and mortality endpoints, however, close agreement was seen between studies. Based on 14 288 deaths during an average of 7.0 years of follow-up in UK Biobank and 7861 deaths over 10 years of mortality surveillance in HSE-SHS, for cardiovascular disease mortality, for instance, the age and sex adjusted hazard ratio for ever having smoked cigarettes (versus never) was 2.04 (95% confidence interval 1.87 to 2.24) in UK Biobank and 1.99 (1.78 to 2.23) in HSE-SHS, yielding a ratio of hazard ratios close to unity (1.02, 0.88 to 1.19). The overall pattern of agreement between studies was essentially unchanged when results were compared separately by sex and when baseline years and censoring dates were aligned. CONCLUSION: Despite a very low response rate, risk factor associations in the UK Biobank seem to be generalisable. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2020-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7190071/ /pubmed/32051121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m131 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Batty, G David
Gale, Catharine R
Kivimäki, Mika
Deary, Ian J
Bell, Steven
Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of risk factor associations in uk biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32051121
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m131
work_keys_str_mv AT battygdavid comparisonofriskfactorassociationsinukbiobankagainstrepresentativegeneralpopulationbasedstudieswithconventionalresponseratesprospectivecohortstudyandindividualparticipantmetaanalysis
AT galecathariner comparisonofriskfactorassociationsinukbiobankagainstrepresentativegeneralpopulationbasedstudieswithconventionalresponseratesprospectivecohortstudyandindividualparticipantmetaanalysis
AT kivimakimika comparisonofriskfactorassociationsinukbiobankagainstrepresentativegeneralpopulationbasedstudieswithconventionalresponseratesprospectivecohortstudyandindividualparticipantmetaanalysis
AT dearyianj comparisonofriskfactorassociationsinukbiobankagainstrepresentativegeneralpopulationbasedstudieswithconventionalresponseratesprospectivecohortstudyandindividualparticipantmetaanalysis
AT bellsteven comparisonofriskfactorassociationsinukbiobankagainstrepresentativegeneralpopulationbasedstudieswithconventionalresponseratesprospectivecohortstudyandindividualparticipantmetaanalysis