new paper: pulmonary dysfunction and CVD outcome in the ELSA study

 This is a special paper to me, as this is a paper that is 100% the product of my team at the CSB.Well, 100%? Not really. This is the first paper from a series of projects where we work with open data, i.e. data collected by others who subsequently shared it. A lot of people talk about open data, and how all the data created should be made available to other researchers, but not a lot of people talk about using that kind of data. For that reason we have picked a couple of data resources to see how easy it is to work with data that is initially not collected by ourselves.

It is hard, as we now have learned. Even though the studies we have focussed on (ELSA study and UK understanding society) have a good description of their data and methods, understanding this takes time and effort. And even after putting in all the time and effort you might still not know all the little details and idiosyncrasies in this data.

A nice example lies in the exposure that we used in this analyses, pulmonary dysfunction. The data for this exposure was captured in several different datasets, in different variables. Reverse engineering a logical and interpretable concept out of these data points was not easy. This is perhaps also true in data that you do collect yourself, but then at least these thoughts are being more or less done before data collection starts and no reverse engineering is needed. new paper: pulmonary dysfunction and CVD outcome in the ELSA study

So we learned a lot. Not only about the role of pulmonary dysfunction as a cause of CVD (hint, it is limited), or about the different sensitivity analyses that we used to check the influence of missing data on the conclusions of our main analyses (hint, limited again) or the need of updating an exposure that progresses over time (hint, relevant), but also about how it is to use data collected by others (hint, useful but not easy).

The paper, with the title “Pulmonary dysfunction and development of different cardiovascular outcomes in the general population.” with IP as the first author can be found here on pubmed or via my mendeley profile.

Advertisements

New paper: Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young Adults

2017-06-16 09_26_46-Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young2017-06-16 09_25_58-Contribution of Established Stroke Risk Factors to the Burden of Stroke in Young

Just a relative risk is not enough to fully understand the implications of your findings. Sure, if you are an expert in a field, the context of that field will help you to assess the RR. But if ou are not, the context of the numerator and denominator is often lost. There are several ways to work towards that. If you have a question that revolves around group discrimination (i.e. questions of diagnosis or prediction) the RR needs to be understood in relation to other predictors or diagnostic variables. That combination is best assessed through the added discriminatory value such as the AUC improvement or even more fancy methods like reclassification tables and net benefit indices. But if you are interested in are interested in a single factor (e.g. in questions of causality or treatment) a number needed to treat (NNT) or the Population Attributable Fraction can be used.

The PAF has been subject of my publications before, for example in these papers where we use the PAF to provide the context for the different OR of markers of hypercoagulability in the RATIO study / in a systematic review. This paper is a more general text, as it is meant to provide in insight for non epidemiologist what epidemiology can bring to the field of law. Here, the PAF is an interesting measure, as it has relation to the etiological fraction – a number that can be very interesting in tort law. Some of my slides from a law symposium that I attended addresses these questions and that particular Dutch case of tort law.

But the PAF is and remains an epidemiological measure and tells us what fraction of the cases in the population can be attributed to the exposure of interest. You can combine the PAF to a single number (given some assumptions which basically boil down to the idea that the combined factors work on an exact multiplicative scale, both statistically as well as biologically). A 2016 Lancet paper, which made huge impact and increased interest in the concept of the PAF, was the INTERSTROKE paper. It showed that up to 90% of all stroke cases can be attributed to only 10 factors, and all of them modifiable.

We had the question whether this was the same for young stroke patients. After all, the longstanding idea is that young stroke is a different disease from old stroke, where traditional CVD risk factors play a less prominent role. The idea is that more exotic causal mechanisms (e.g. hypercoagulability) play a more prominent role in this age group. Boy, where we wrong. In a dataset which combines data from the SIFAP and GEDA studies, we noticed that the bulk of the cases can be attributed to modifiable risk factors (80% to 4 risk factors). There are some elements with the paper (age effect even within the young study population, subtype effects, definition effects) that i wont go into here. For that you need the read the paper -published in stroke- here, or via my mendeley account. The main work of the work was done by AA and UG. Great job!

Berlin Epidemiological Methods Colloquium kicks of with SER event

A small group of epi-nerds (JLR, TK and myself) decided to start a colloquium on epidemiological methods. This colloquium series kicks off with a webcast of an event organised by the Society for Epidemiological Research (SER), but in general we will organize meetings focussed on advanced topics in epidemiological methods. Anyone interested is welcome. Regularly meetings will start in February 2017. All meetings will be held in English.
More information on the first event can be found below or via this link:

“Perspective of relative versus absolute effect measures” via SERdigital

Date: Wednesday, November 16th 2016 Time: 6:00pm – 9:00pm
Location: Seminar Room of the Neurology Clinic, first floor (Alte Nervenklinik)
Bonhoefferweg 3, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin- Campus Mitte, 10117 Berlin
(Map: https://www.charite.de/service/lageplan/plan/map/ccm_bonhoefferweg_3)

Description:
Join us for a live, interactive viewing party of a debate between two leading epidemiologists, Dr. Charlie Poole and Dr. Donna Spiegelman, about the merits of relative versus absolute effect measures. Which measure of effect should epidemiologists prioritize? This digital event organized by the Society for Epidemiologic Research will also include three live oral presentations selected from submitted abstracts. There will be open discussion with other viewers from across the globe and opportunities to submit questions to the speakers. And since no movie night is complete without popcorn, we will provide that, too! For more information, see: https://epiresearch.org/ser50/serdigital

If you plan to attend, please register (space limited): https://goo.gl/forms/3Q0OsOxufk4rL9Pu1