Top Quality Call Girl Service Kalyanpur 6378878445 Available Call Girls Any Time
Brief Look at Association vs causation
1. Association vs. Causation
Patrick B. Barlow
PhD Candidate in Evaluation, Statistics, & Measurement
The University of Tennessee
This and many other lecture materials are available at www.slideshare.net/pbbarlow1
2. In this Presentation…
Section I: Association vs. Causation, what does it look like?
Conceptually speaking
Casual Pathways
Section II: Methods for judging strength of causal relationship
Bradford Hill Criteria
Pyramid of Clinical Evidence
4. Association vs. Causation
Conceptually Speaking
Association
Correlation
Regression
Odds / Relative Risk
Causation
Influence
Effect
Confounding
Explanation
Dependence
Intervention
Likelihood
Randomization
Conditional
Attribution
Adapted From: Joffe et al. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2012
5. Association vs. Causation
Conceptually Speaking
Association
Two observed variables that are jointly
distributed
Can be strong, weak, positive, or negative.
Causation
“A causal relationship is one that has a
mechanism that by its operation makes a
difference” (Joffe et al., 2012).
For example:
6. Causal Pathways
When in doubt, draw it out!
Causal Pathways
Visual depictions of the proposed links
between a given exposure(s) and the
outcome of interest.
They help researchers understand the
mechanisms at work in a complex
disease process.
Exposure
?
Outcome
9. Methods for Judging Strength of Causal
Relationship
Bradford Hill Criteria
Pyramid of Clinical Evidence
10. The Bradford Hill Criteria
Provides researchers with seven criteria for assessing strength of evidence.
Strength of association (i.e. effect size)
Consistency (i.e. reliability)
Specificity
Temporal relationship
Biological gradient
Plausibility
Coherence
Experiment (reversibility)
Analogy (consideration of alternate explanations)
11. The Bradford Hill Criteria
a closer look…
Strength of association (i.e. effect size)
Is the magnitude of the association both statistically and clinically meaningful?
Consistency (i.e. reliability)
Can these results be reproduced? Do they coincide with existing research on the same phenomenon?
Specificity
Association is specific when the exposure is associated with only one disease
Temporal relationship
Does the exposure (cause) precede the outcome (effect)?
12. The Bradford Hill Criteria
a closer look…
Biological gradient
Dose-response relationship can be established
Biological Plausibility
Is the association coherent with the current body of biologic knowledge?
Coherence
Is the association plausible given what we already know about the disease or disorder?
Experimental evidence
Has this association been shown in a randomized experimental trial?
Analogy (consideration of alternate explanations)
Have all other plausible alternative explanations been considered and ruled out? “The third variable
issue”
13. Strength of Evidence & Study Design
Which criteria are difficult to satisfy with…
Case – Control studies?
Cross – Sectional studies?
Cohort – Studies?
14. Pyramid of Clinical Evidence
Systematic Reviews
& Meta-analyses
Cross-Sectional
Studies: Level “2.3”
Evidence
Summaries
RCT
Cohort Studies
Level 1 Evidence
Level 2 Evidence
Case Control Studies
Level 3 Evidence
Case Series
Case Reports
Ideas, Editorials, Opinions
Animal research
In vitro (‘test tube’) research
15. So, when reading an article…
Whenever digging into a new controversy or research area, it is helpful to
use methods for judging the strength of the relationship being discussed.
What type of study design are the using? (Pyramid of evidence)
How strong is the evidence? (Bradford Hill Criteria)
What is the clinical vs. statistical significance being presented?
Notas do Editor
Cross-sectional Studies considered 2.3 by the OBGYN journal I looked at, but it is not technically a “Clinical” study.Double check to see if this is the same pyramid of evidence you see used in Epi.