Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/60710
Type of publication: Straipsnis Clarivate Analytics Web of Science ar/ir Scopus / Article in Clarivate Analytics Web of Science or / and Scopus (S1)
Field of Science: Biologija / Biology (N010)
Author(s): Basagaña, Xavier;Pedersen, Marie;Barrera-Gomez, Jose;Gehring, Ulrike;Giorgis-Allemand, Lise;Hoek, Gerard;Stafoggia, Massimo;Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark J;Brunekreef, Bert;Slama, Rémy;Ballester, Ferran;Cesaroni, Giulia;Charles, Marie-Aline;Chatzi, Leda;Danilevičiutė, Asta;Hoogh, Kees de;Dėdelė, Audrius;Estarlich, Marisa;Fernandez-Somoano, Ana;Forastiere, Francesco;Gražulevičienė, Regina;Gruzieva, Olena;Heude, Barbara;Iniguez, Carmen;Jaddoe, Vincent W. V;Lepeule, Johanna;Lerchundi, Aitana;Andersen, Anne-Marie Nybo;Oftedal, Bente;Porta, Daniela;Raaschou-Nielsen, Ole;Rudnai, Peter;Schikowski, Tamara;Schwarze, Per;Sørensen, Mette;Sunyer, Jordi;Pershagen, Goran;Kogevinas, Manolis
Title: Analysis of multicentre epidemiological studies: contrasting fixed or random effects modelling and meta-analysis
Is part of: International journal of epidemiology. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2018, Vol. 47, iss. 4
Extent: p. 1343-1354
Date: 2018
Note: Online ISSN 1464-3685. ESCAPE Birth Outcomes working group is in the end of article
Keywords: Fixed effects;Random effects;Multicentre study;Multilevel analysis;Meta-analysis
Abstract: Multicentre studies are common in epidemiological research aiming at identifying disease risk factors. A major advantage of multicentre over single-centre studies is that, by including a larger number of participants, they allow consideration of rare outcomes and exposures. Their multicentric nature introduces some complexities at the step of data analysis, in particular when it comes to controlling for confounding by centre, which is the focus of this tutorial. Commonly, epidemiologists use one of the following options: pooling all centre-specific data and adjusting for centre using fixed effects; adjusting for centre using random effects; or fitting centre-specific models and combining the results in a meta-analysis. Here, we illustrate the similarities of and differences between these three modelling approaches, explain the reasons why they may provide different conclusions and offer advice on which model to choose depending on the characteristics of the study. Two key issues to examine during the analyses are to distinguish within-centre from between-centre associations, and the possible heterogeneity of the effects (of exposure and/or confounders) by centre. A real epidemiological study is used to illustrate a situation in which these various options yield different results. A synthetic dataset and R and Stata codes are provided to reproduce the results
Internet: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyy117
Affiliation(s): Aplinkotyros katedra
Gamtos mokslų fakultetas
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:Universiteto mokslo publikacijos / University Research Publications

Files in This Item:
marc.xml19.04 kBXMLView/Open

MARC21 XML metadata

Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations 5

7
checked on Jun 2, 2020

Page view(s)

92
checked on Aug 17, 2019

Download(s)

4
checked on Aug 17, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.