Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Relative Risk

Relative Risk

Relative risk (RR) is a statistical measure commonly used in epidemiology to compare the likelihood of a particular event occurring between two groups. This metric is important for evaluating the relationship between exposure to a specific risk factor and the probability of a particular outcome. It plays a crucial role in medical research, public health studies, and risk assessment. Relative risk quantifies how much more (or less) likely an event is to occur in an exposed group compared to an...

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Odds Ratio

Odds Ratio

The odds ratio (OR) is a statistical measure used extensively in epidemiology and research to quantify the strength of association between exposure and outcome across different groups. Unlike relative risk, which compares the probabilities of an event occurring, the odds ratio compares the odds of an event occurring in the exposed group to the odds of it occurring in the unexposed group. The odds, in this context, are calculated as the probability of the event happening divided by the...

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Bone Mass Loss and Sarcopenia in Ecuadorian Patients.

Journal of aging research·2020

Same author

Clinical Characteristics in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Differences between Genders.

TheScientificWorldJournal·2019

Same author

Duodenal membranes: a late diagnosis evidenced by foreign bodies.

Oxford medical case reports·2018

Same author

Angular momentum regulation strategies for highly dynamic landing in Parkour.

Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering·2017

Same author

Two glutathione transferase isoforms isolated from juvenile cysts of Taenia crassiceps: identification, purification and characterization.

Journal of helminthology·2017

Same author

Determination of Vitamin D Status in a Population of Ecuadorian Subjects.

TheScientificWorldJournal·2017

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 4, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Adjusting a relative-risk estimate for study imperfections.

¹School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. GMPhD@umn.edu

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

|June 19, 2008

Summary

Epidemiological analysis often relies on unjustified assumptions about study imperfections. This study introduces a method to replace these assumptions with better ones, improving quantitative risk estimates.

Area of Science:

Epidemiology
Biostatistics
Quantitative Science

Background:

Statistical analyses in epidemiology integrate data with assumptions to produce quantitative results.
A common, yet unjustified, assumption in quantitative epidemiological analyses is that study imperfections do not significantly impact results.
These imperfections include residual confounding, subject losses, non-random sampling, non-response, missing data exclusions, and measurement error.

Purpose of the Study:

To explain how typical epidemiological analyses implicitly make unjustified assumptions about study imperfections.
To demonstrate how these assumptions can be replaced with more justifiable ones in quantitative analyses.
To provide a mathematical framework for quantitatively adjusting relative risk estimates for the effects of study imperfections.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 4, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Main Methods:

Illustrating fundamental concepts with a simple, everyday example.
Developing a mathematical description of the relationship between observed relative risk, true causal relative risk, and error terms.
Quantitatively adjusting relative risk estimates based on the combined impact of identified study imperfections.

Main Results:

Demonstration that typical epidemiological analyses often proceed with an unstated assumption of no impact from study imperfections.
Presentation of a mathematical model to quantify the influence of various study imperfections on relative risk estimates.
Validation of a method to adjust observed relative risk for the cumulative effect of these imperfections.

Conclusions:

The implicit assumption that study imperfections have no impact is a critical flaw in many epidemiological analyses.
A more rigorous approach involves replacing this assumption with a quantitatively justified one.
The proposed mathematical framework enables more accurate and reliable relative risk estimation in epidemiological studies.