Background Participants in cohort studies are frequently selected from restricted source populations. It has been recognised that such restriction may affect the study validity.
Objectives To assess the bias that may arise when analyses involve data from cohorts based on restricted source populations, an area little studied in quantitative terms.
Methods Monte Carlo simulations were used, based on a setting where the exposure and one risk factor for the outcome, which are not associated in the general population, influence selection into the cohort. All the parameters involved in the simulations (ie, prevalence and effects of exposure and risk factor on both the selection and outcome process, selection prevalence, baseline outcome incidence rate, and sample size) were allowed to vary to reflect real life settings.
Results The simulations show that when the exposure and risk factor are strongly associated with selection (ORs of 4 or 0.25) and the unmeasured risk factor is associated with a disease HR of 4, the bias in the estimated log HR for the exposure–disease association is ±0.15. When these associations decrease to values more commonly seen in epidemiological studies (eg, ORs and HRs of 2 or 0.5), the bias in the log HR drops to just ±0.02.
Conclusions Using a restricted source population for a cohort study will, under a range of sensible scenarios, produce only relatively weak bias in estimates of the exposure–disease associations.
- Directed Acyclical Graphs
- selection bias
- Monte Carlo Simulations
- BIAS ME
- epidemiology ME
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The study was conducted within projects partially funded by Compagnia SanPaolo/FIRMS, the Piedmont Region, the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR), the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC) and the Massey University Research Fund (MURF). The Centre for Public Health Research is supported by a Programme Grant from the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.