Search

While frameworks to systematically assess bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) and frameworks on causal inference are well established, they are less frequently integrated beyond the data analysis stages. This paper proposes the use of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) in the design stage of SRMAs. We hypothesize that DAGs created and registered a priori can offer a useful approach to more effective and efficient evidence synthesis. DAGs provide a visual representation of the complex assumed relationships between variables within and beyond individual studies prior to data analysis, facilitating discussion among researchers, guiding data analysis, and may lead to more targeted inclusion criteria or set of data extraction items. We illustrate this argument through both experimental and observational case examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spatial epidemiology has emerged as an important subfield of epidemiology over the past quarter century. We trace the origins of spatial epidemiology and note that its emergence coincided with technological developments in spatial statistics and geography. We hypothesize that spatial epidemiology makes important contributions to descriptive epidemiology and analytic risk-factor studies but is not yet aligned with epidemiology’s current focus on causal inference and intervention. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies indexed in PubMed that used the term “spatial epidemiolog*” in the title, abstract, or keywords. Excluded articles were not written in English, examined disease in animals, or reported biologic pathogen distribution only. We coded the included papers into five categories (review, demonstration of method, descriptive, analytic, and intervention) and recorded the unit of analysis (i.e., individual vs. ecological). We additionally examined articles coded as analytic ecologic studies using scales for lexical content. Results: A total of 482 articles met the inclusion criteria, including 76 reviews, 117 demonstrations of methods, 122 descriptive studies, 167 analytic studies, and 0 intervention studies. Demonstration studies were most common from 2006 to 2014, and analytic studies were most common after 2015. Among the analytic ecologic studies, those published in later years used more terms relevant to spatial statistics (incidence rate ratio =1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 1.5) and causal inference (incidence rate ratio =1.1; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.2). Conclusions: Spatial epidemiology is an important and growing subfield of epidemiology. We suggest a re-orientation to help align its practice with the goals of contemporary epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we advocate and expand upon a previously described monitoring strategy for efficient and robust estimation of disease prevalence and case numbers within closed and enumerated populations such as schools, workplaces, or retirement communities. The proposed design relies largely on voluntary testing, which is notoriously biased (e.g. in the case of coronavirus disease 2019) due to nonrepresentative sampling. The approach yields unbiased and comparatively precise estimates with no assumptions about factors underlying selection of individuals for voluntary testing, building on the strength of what can be a small random sampling component. This component enables the use of a recently proposed "anchor stream" estimator, a well-calibrated alternative to classical capture-recapture (CRC) estimators based on 2 data streams. We show that this estimator is equivalent to a direct standardization based on "capture," that is, selection (or not) by the voluntary testing program, made possible by means of a key parameter identified by design. This equivalency simultaneously allows for novel 2-stream CRC-like estimation of general mean values (e.g. means of continuous variables like antibody levels or biomarkers). For inference, we propose adaptations of Bayesian credible intervals when estimating case counts and bootstrapping when estimating means of continuous variables. We use simulations to demonstrate significant precision benefits relative to random sampling alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calculation of sample size is an essential part of research study design since it affects the reliability and feasibility of the research study. In this article, we look at the principles of sample size calculation for different types of research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]