White E, Hunt J R, Casso D
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):43-56. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a017971.
Cohort study designs have several advantages over case-control studies in terms of exposure measurement. If exposure measurement occurs before disease occurrence, cohort studies are much less prone to differential measurement error. Prospective data collection should also reduce measurement error due to poor recall of past exposures. The primary drawback of cohort studies is the large sample size leading to high data collection costs. Several approaches to reduce such costs have been discussed in this presentation, such as selection of lower cost measurement methods and fully measuring the exposure only on a subsample of the cohort (e.g., nested case-control design). However, other innovative approaches to reduce costs are needed. In addition, study reviewers should also consider that the higher costs are justified in relation to the several benefits of this study design, which include not only less measurement error, but also less susceptibility to selection bias and often the ability to study multiple disease outcomes. Improving the accuracy of exposure measurement is increasingly important for cohort studies as we move on to the study of exposures that are difficult to measure or to those with lower relative risks of disease. In such studies, attenuation of the relative risk by the effects of measurement error can lead to failure to detect an association between exposure and disease. The validity of exposure measurements could be improved by a better understanding of the biologically active agent and etiologically important time period of the exposure-disease relation, and by incorporating these into the measure. Long-term cohort studies which cover the etiologically relevant time period could improve the accuracy of measures of exposures by use of repeated biologic measures or repeated updates of self-reported exposures. Measurement error also can be reduced by judicious choice of a cohort to study and by careful attention to quality control procedures. Continued emphasis on the evaluation and improvement of the measurement properties of instruments used in epidemiologic studies will improve the validity of the results of cohort studies.
在暴露测量方面,队列研究设计相对于病例对照研究有几个优势。如果暴露测量在疾病发生之前进行,队列研究产生差异测量误差的可能性要小得多。前瞻性数据收集也应减少因对过去暴露情况回忆不佳而导致的测量误差。队列研究的主要缺点是样本量大会导致数据收集成本高。本报告中讨论了几种降低此类成本的方法,例如选择成本较低的测量方法,以及仅对队列的一个子样本进行充分的暴露测量(例如巢式病例对照设计)。然而,还需要其他创新方法来降低成本。此外,研究评审人员还应考虑到,相对于该研究设计的诸多益处而言,较高的成本是合理的,这些益处不仅包括测量误差较小,而且对选择偏倚的敏感性较低,并且通常能够研究多种疾病结局。随着我们转向研究难以测量的暴露因素或疾病相对风险较低的暴露因素,提高暴露测量的准确性对队列研究来说变得越来越重要。在这类研究中,测量误差的影响导致相对风险减弱可能会导致无法检测到暴露与疾病之间的关联。通过更好地理解生物活性剂以及暴露 - 疾病关系中具有病因学重要性的时间段,并将这些因素纳入测量中,可以提高暴露测量的有效性。涵盖病因学相关时间段的长期队列研究可以通过使用重复的生物学测量或对自我报告暴露的重复更新来提高暴露测量的准确性。通过明智地选择要研究的队列并仔细关注质量控制程序,也可以减少测量误差。持续强调对流行病学研究中使用的仪器测量特性的评估和改进将提高队列研究结果的有效性。