Cholesky Residuals for Assessing Normal Errors in a Linear Model with Correlated Outcomes: Technical Report

Despite the widespread popularity of linear models for correlated outcomes (e.g. linear mixed models and time series models), distribution diagnostic methodology remains relatively underdeveloped in this context. In this paper we present an easy-to-implement approach that lends itself to graphical displays of model fit. Our approach involves multiplying the estimated margional residual vector by the Cholesky decomposition of the inverse of the estimated margional variance matrix. The resulting "rotated" residuals are used to construct an empirical cumulative distribution function and pointwise standard errors. The theoretical framework, including conditions and asymptotic properties, involves technical details that are motivated by Lange and Ryan (1989), Pierce (1982), and Randles (1982). Our method appears to work well in a variety of circumstances, including models having independent units of sampling (clustered data) and models for which all observations are correlated (e.g., a single time series). Our methods can produce satisfactory results even for models that do not satisfy all of the technical conditions stated in our theory.

Underestimation of Standard Errors in Multi-Site Time Series Studies

Multi-site time series studies of air pollution and mortality and morbidity have figured prominently in the literature as comprehensive approaches for estimating acute effects of air pollution on health. Hierarchical models are generally used to combine site-specific information and estimate pooled air pollution effects taking into account both within-site statistical uncertainty, and across-site heterogeneity. Within a site, characteristics of time series data of air pollution and health (small pollution effects, missing data, highly correlated predictors, non linear confounding etc.) make modelling all sources of uncertainty challenging. One potential consequence is underestimation of the statistical variance of the site-specific effects to be combined. In this paper we investigate the impact of variance underestimation on the pooled relative rate estimate. We focus on two-stage normal-normal hierarchical models and on under- estimation of the statistical variance at the first stage. By mathematical considerations and simulation studies, we found that variance underestimation does not affect the pooled estimate substantially. However, some sensitivity of the pooled estimate to variance underestimation is observed when the number of sites is small and underestimation is severe. These simulation results are applicable to any two-stage normal-normal hierarchical model for combining information of site-specific results, and they can be easily extended to more general hierarchical formulations. We also examined the impact of variance underestimation on the national average relative rate estimate from the National Morbidity Mortality Air Pollution Study and we found that variance underestimation as much as 40% has little effect on the national average.

LEARNING FROM NEAR MISSES IN MEDICATION ERRORS: A BAYESIAN APPROACH

Medical errors originating in health care facilities are a significant source of preventable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Voluntary error report systems that collect information on the causes and contributing factors of medi- cal errors regardless of the resulting harm may be useful for developing effective harm prevention strategies. Some patient safety experts question the utility of data from errors that did not lead to harm to the patient, also called near misses. A near miss (a.k.a. close call) is an unplanned event that did not result in injury to the patient. Only a fortunate break in the chain of events prevented injury. We use data from a large voluntary reporting system of 836,174 medication errors from 1999 to 2005 to provide evidence that the causes and contributing factors of errors that result in harm are similar to the causes and contributing factors of near misses. We develop Bayesian hierarchical models for estimating the log odds of selecting a given cause (or contributing factor) of error given harm has occurred and the log odds of selecting the same cause given that harm did not occur. The posterior distribution of the correlation between these two vectors of log-odds is used as a measure of the evidence supporting the use of data from near misses and their causes and contributing factors to prevent medical errors. In addition, we identify the causes and contributing factors that have the highest or lowest log-odds ratio of harm versus no harm. These causes and contributing factors should also be a focus in the design of prevention strategies. This paper provides important evidence on the utility of data from near misses, which constitute the vast majority of errors in our data.

Analyzing Bivariate Survival Data with Interval Sampling and Application to Cancer Epidemiology

In medical follow-up studies, ordered bivariate survival data are frequently encountered when bivariate failure events are used as the outcomes to identify the progression of a disease. In cancer studies interest could be focused on bivariate failure times, for example, time from birth to cancer onset and time from cancer onset to death. This paper considers a sampling scheme where the first failure event (cancer onset) is identified within a calendar time interval, the time of the initiating event (birth) can be retrospectively confirmed, and the occurrence of the second event (death) is observed sub ject to right censoring. To analyze this type of bivariate failure time data, it is important to recognize the presence of bias arising due to interval sampling. In this paper, nonparametric and semiparametric methods are developed to analyze the bivariate survival data with interval sampling under stationary and semi-stationary conditions. Numerical studies demonstrate the proposed estimating approaches perform well with practical sample sizes in different simulated models. We apply the proposed methods to SEER ovarian cancer registry data for illustration of the methods and theory.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed "Explanation and Elaboration" document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.