S. Pattenden et al., Methodological approaches to the analysis of hierarchical studies of air pollution and respiratory health - examples from the CESAR study, J EXP AN EN, 10(5), 2000, pp. 420-426
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Environment/Ecology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Objectives: Many studies of air pollution and health are carried out over s
everal geographical areas, and sometimes over several countries. This paper
explores three approaches to analysis in such studies: a non hierarchical
model, a two-stage analysis, and multilevel modelling. Illustrations are gi
ven using a preliminary subset of data from the CESAR study. Design: The Ce
ntral European Study on Air pollution and Respiratory Health (CESAR) was co
nducted in 25 areas within six Central European countries, enrolling 20,271
schoolchildren. Pollution averages were calculated for each area. Associat
ions between pollution and health outcomes were estimated under different m
odels. Main results: A regression analysis of log FVC (forced vital capacit
y) on PM10, ignoring the geographical hierarchy, estimated a significant me
an drop in FVC (adjusted for confounders) of 2.2% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.3%), p=
0.007, from the area with the lowest PM10 to that with the highest. A multi
level model (m/m),using data for all children, but with random effects at a
rea and country level, estimated a drop of 2.8% (-0.6% to 6.1%), p=0.110. A
two-stage analysis (mean log FVC, adjusted for confounders, was estimated
for each area using regression, and these means then regressed on PM10) est
imated a drop of 2.6% (-0.5% to 5.5%), p=0.101. Simulation exercises showed
the non hierarchical method to be very inadequate in the context of the CE
SAR study, with only half of all 95% confidence intervals for the estimated
PM10 slope containing the true value (i.e., that used to create the simula
ted data). The two-stage and multilevel modelling methods gave results whic
h were substantially better, though both underperformed slightly All three
methods appeared to give unbiased slope estimates. Conclusions: Acknowledge
ment of hierarchical structures is essential in statistical inference - sta
ndard errors can be substantially incorrect when they are ignored. Multilev
el, random-effects models correctly address hierarchical structures, though
having few units at higher levels can cause problems in convergence, espec
ially where complex modelling is required. Two-stage analyses, acknowledgin
g hierarchy, provide simple alternatives to random-effects models.