Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Commentary Should Epidemiologists Be More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity?

Commentary Should Epidemiologists Be More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity? Deepa & Naresh COMMENTARY Epidemiologists More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity Should Epidemiologists Be More Sensitive to  Stuart and Hanna Design Sensitivity? a,b c Elizabeth A. Stuart and David B. Hanna Epidemiology 00 e would like to congratulate Zubizarreta et al for a carefully done nonexperimental Wstudy on the effects of the 2010 Chilean earthquake on posttraumatic stress. The 00 article illustrates a compelling mix of complementary techniques to improve their nonex- perimental study—clever design elements (broadly termed “design sensitivity”) to increase 2012 power and robustness, propensity score matching to adjust for observed confounders, and analysis of sensitivity to potential unobserved confounders. Using rare longitudinal data of persons before and after the earthquake to minimize recall bias and ensure appropriate temporal ordering, they compare persons with very disparate exposure to the earthquake and allow for heterogeneous treatment effects, finding that posttraumatic stress is “dramati - cally but unevenly elevated” among affected residents. Although there are many interesting aspects to the article, we focus here on the idea of design sensitivity because we believe it to be unfamiliar to most epidemiologists, with few examples in the applied literature. Design sensitivity can be thought of as a formalization of the general idea of using smart design elements to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Epidemiology Wolters Kluwer Health

Commentary Should Epidemiologists Be More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity?

Hanna, David B.
Epidemiology , Volume 24 (1) – Jan 1, 2013
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/commentary-should-epidemiologists-be-more-sensitive-to-design-pPTBMovBgL

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN
1044-3983
eISSN
1531-5487
DOI
10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182782468
pmid
23232614
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Deepa & Naresh COMMENTARY Epidemiologists More Sensitive to Design Sensitivity Should Epidemiologists Be More Sensitive to  Stuart and Hanna Design Sensitivity? a,b c Elizabeth A. Stuart and David B. Hanna Epidemiology 00 e would like to congratulate Zubizarreta et al for a carefully done nonexperimental Wstudy on the effects of the 2010 Chilean earthquake on posttraumatic stress. The 00 article illustrates a compelling mix of complementary techniques to improve their nonex- perimental study—clever design elements (broadly termed “design sensitivity”) to increase 2012 power and robustness, propensity score matching to adjust for observed confounders, and analysis of sensitivity to potential unobserved confounders. Using rare longitudinal data of persons before and after the earthquake to minimize recall bias and ensure appropriate temporal ordering, they compare persons with very disparate exposure to the earthquake and allow for heterogeneous treatment effects, finding that posttraumatic stress is “dramati - cally but unevenly elevated” among affected residents. Although there are many interesting aspects to the article, we focus here on the idea of design sensitivity because we believe it to be unfamiliar to most epidemiologists, with few examples in the applied literature. Design sensitivity can be thought of as a formalization of the general idea of using smart design elements to

Journal

Epidemiology – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Jan 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.