Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Silva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida da
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Santos,Simone M., Coeli,Cláudia Medina, Carvalho,Marilia Sá
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2015001102259
Resumo: Abstract The proportion of non-participation in cohort studies, if associated with both the exposure and the probability of occurrence of the event, can introduce bias in the estimates of interest. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of participation and its characteristics in longitudinal studies. A systematic review (MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science) for articles describing the proportion of participation in the baseline of cohort studies was performed. Among the 2,964 initially identified, 50 were selected. The average proportion of participation was 64.7%. Using a meta-regression model with mixed effects, only age, year of baseline contact and study region (borderline) were associated with participation. Considering the decrease in participation in recent years, and the cost of cohort studies, it is essential to gather information to assess the potential for non-participation, before committing resources. Finally, journals should require the presentation of this information in the papers.
id FIOCRUZ-5_63cb1a278e846603535da9ebcc3b339a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0102-311X2015001102259
network_acronym_str FIOCRUZ-5
network_name_str Cadernos de Saúde Pública
repository_id_str
spelling Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysisSelection BiasCohort StudiesEpidemiologic MethodsAbstract The proportion of non-participation in cohort studies, if associated with both the exposure and the probability of occurrence of the event, can introduce bias in the estimates of interest. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of participation and its characteristics in longitudinal studies. A systematic review (MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science) for articles describing the proportion of participation in the baseline of cohort studies was performed. Among the 2,964 initially identified, 50 were selected. The average proportion of participation was 64.7%. Using a meta-regression model with mixed effects, only age, year of baseline contact and study region (borderline) were associated with participation. Considering the decrease in participation in recent years, and the cost of cohort studies, it is essential to gather information to assess the potential for non-participation, before committing resources. Finally, journals should require the presentation of this information in the papers.Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz2015-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2015001102259Cadernos de Saúde Pública v.31 n.11 2015reponame:Cadernos de Saúde Públicainstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZ10.1590/0102-311X00133814info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSilva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida daSantos,Simone M.Coeli,Cláudia MedinaCarvalho,Marilia Sáeng2016-05-24T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-311X2015001102259Revistahttp://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/csp/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpcadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br1678-44640102-311Xopendoar:2016-05-24T00:00Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
title Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
spellingShingle Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Silva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida da
Selection Bias
Cohort Studies
Epidemiologic Methods
title_short Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
title_full Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
title_fullStr Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
title_sort Assessment of participation bias in cohort studies: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
author Silva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida da
author_facet Silva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida da
Santos,Simone M.
Coeli,Cláudia Medina
Carvalho,Marilia Sá
author_role author
author2 Santos,Simone M.
Coeli,Cláudia Medina
Carvalho,Marilia Sá
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Silva Junior,Sérgio Henrique Almeida da
Santos,Simone M.
Coeli,Cláudia Medina
Carvalho,Marilia Sá
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Selection Bias
Cohort Studies
Epidemiologic Methods
topic Selection Bias
Cohort Studies
Epidemiologic Methods
description Abstract The proportion of non-participation in cohort studies, if associated with both the exposure and the probability of occurrence of the event, can introduce bias in the estimates of interest. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of participation and its characteristics in longitudinal studies. A systematic review (MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science) for articles describing the proportion of participation in the baseline of cohort studies was performed. Among the 2,964 initially identified, 50 were selected. The average proportion of participation was 64.7%. Using a meta-regression model with mixed effects, only age, year of baseline contact and study region (borderline) were associated with participation. Considering the decrease in participation in recent years, and the cost of cohort studies, it is essential to gather information to assess the potential for non-participation, before committing resources. Finally, journals should require the presentation of this information in the papers.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-11-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2015001102259
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2015001102259
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0102-311X00133814
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Cadernos de Saúde Pública v.31 n.11 2015
reponame:Cadernos de Saúde Pública
instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron:FIOCRUZ
instname_str Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron_str FIOCRUZ
institution FIOCRUZ
reponame_str Cadernos de Saúde Pública
collection Cadernos de Saúde Pública
repository.name.fl_str_mv Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br
_version_ 1754115736185339904

Registros relacionados