Richardson David B, Keil Alexander P, Tchetgen Tchetgen Eric, Cooper Glinda
From the aDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; bDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, MA; and cNational Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Epidemiology. 2015 Sep;26(5):727-32. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000353.
In occupational cohort mortality studies, epidemiologists often compare the observed number of deaths in the cohort to the expected number obtained by multiplying person-time accrued in the study cohort by the mortality rate in an external reference population. Interpretation of the result may be difficult due to noncomparability of the occupational cohort and reference population with respect to unmeasured risk factors for the outcome of interest. We describe an approach to estimate an adjusted standardized mortality ratio (aSMR) to control for such bias. The approach draws on methods developed for the use of negative control outcomes. Conditions necessary for unbiased estimation are described, as well as looser conditions necessary for bias reduction. The approach is illustrated using data on bladder cancer mortality among male Oak Ridge National Laboratory workers. The SMR for bladder cancer was elevated among hourly-paid males (SMR = 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3, 2.7) but not among monthly-paid males (SMR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.67, 1.3). After indirect adjustment using the proposed approach, the mortality ratios were similar in magnitude among hourly- and monthly-paid men (aSMR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.5, 3.2; and, aSMR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.4, 2.8, respectively). The proposed adjusted SMR offers a complement to typical SMR analyses.
在职业队列死亡率研究中,流行病学家常常将队列中观察到的死亡人数与预期死亡人数进行比较,预期死亡人数是通过将研究队列中累积的人时乘以外部参考人群的死亡率得到的。由于职业队列和参考人群在感兴趣结局的未测量风险因素方面不可比,结果的解释可能会很困难。我们描述了一种估计调整标准化死亡率比(aSMR)以控制此类偏差的方法。该方法借鉴了为使用阴性对照结局而开发的方法。描述了无偏估计所需的条件,以及减少偏差所需的较宽松条件。使用橡树岭国家实验室男性工作人员膀胱癌死亡率的数据说明了该方法。按小时计酬男性的膀胱癌标准化死亡率比升高(标准化死亡率比=1.9;95%置信区间[CI]=1.3,2.7),但按月计酬男性则不然(标准化死亡率比=1.0;95%CI=0.67,1.3)。使用所提出的方法进行间接调整后,按小时计酬和按月计酬男性的死亡率比在幅度上相似(调整标准化死亡率比分别为=2.2;95%CI=1.5,3.2;以及调整标准化死亡率比=2.0;95%CI=1.4,2.8)。所提出的调整标准化死亡率比为典型的标准化死亡率比分析提供了补充。