Collaborative, pooled and harmonized study designs for epidemiologic research: Challenges and opportunities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Collaborative study designs (CSDs) that combine individual-level data from multiple independent contributing studies (ICSs) are becoming much more common due to their many advantages: increased statistical power through large sample sizes; increased ability to investigate effect heterogeneity due to diversity of participants; cost-efficiency through capitalizing on existing data; and ability to foster cooperative research and training of junior investigators. CSDs also present surmountable political, logistical and methodological challenges. Data harmonization may result in a reduced set of common data elements, but opportunities exist to leverage heterogeneous data across ICSs to investigate measurement error and residual confounding. Combining data from different study designs is an art, which motivates methods development. Diverse study samples, both across and within ICSs, prompt questions about the generalizability of results from CSDs. However, CSDs present unique opportunities to describe population health across person, place and time in a consistent fashion, and to explicitly generalize results to target populations of public health interest. Additional analytic challenges exist when analysing CSD data, because mechanisms by which systematic biases (e.g. information bias, confounding bias) arise may vary across ICSs, but multidisciplinary research teams are ready to tackle these challenges. CSDs are a powerful tool that, when properly harnessed, permits research that was not previously possible.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)654-668
Number of pages15
JournalInternational Journal of Epidemiology
Volume47
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

Epidemiologic Research Design
Research
Health Services Needs and Demand
Art
Sample Size
Public Health
Research Personnel
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health
Population

Keywords

  • Cohort studies
  • Collaborative study design
  • Data harmonization
  • Heterogeneity
  • Pooled analyses

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

@article{6617dfb89a4744d39e354ad87f315527,
title = "Collaborative, pooled and harmonized study designs for epidemiologic research: Challenges and opportunities",
abstract = "Collaborative study designs (CSDs) that combine individual-level data from multiple independent contributing studies (ICSs) are becoming much more common due to their many advantages: increased statistical power through large sample sizes; increased ability to investigate effect heterogeneity due to diversity of participants; cost-efficiency through capitalizing on existing data; and ability to foster cooperative research and training of junior investigators. CSDs also present surmountable political, logistical and methodological challenges. Data harmonization may result in a reduced set of common data elements, but opportunities exist to leverage heterogeneous data across ICSs to investigate measurement error and residual confounding. Combining data from different study designs is an art, which motivates methods development. Diverse study samples, both across and within ICSs, prompt questions about the generalizability of results from CSDs. However, CSDs present unique opportunities to describe population health across person, place and time in a consistent fashion, and to explicitly generalize results to target populations of public health interest. Additional analytic challenges exist when analysing CSD data, because mechanisms by which systematic biases (e.g. information bias, confounding bias) arise may vary across ICSs, but multidisciplinary research teams are ready to tackle these challenges. CSDs are a powerful tool that, when properly harnessed, permits research that was not previously possible.",
keywords = "Cohort studies, Collaborative study design, Data harmonization, Heterogeneity, Pooled analyses",
author = "Catherine Lesko and Jacobson, {Lisa Paula} and Keri Althoff and Abraham, {Alison Gump} and Gange, {Stephen J} and Moore, {Richard D} and Modur, {Sharada P} and Lau, {Bryan M}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/IJE/DYX283",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "654--668",
journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0300-5771",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collaborative, pooled and harmonized study designs for epidemiologic research

T2 - Challenges and opportunities

AU - Lesko, Catherine

AU - Jacobson, Lisa Paula

AU - Althoff, Keri

AU - Abraham, Alison Gump

AU - Gange, Stephen J

AU - Moore, Richard D

AU - Modur, Sharada P

AU - Lau, Bryan M

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Collaborative study designs (CSDs) that combine individual-level data from multiple independent contributing studies (ICSs) are becoming much more common due to their many advantages: increased statistical power through large sample sizes; increased ability to investigate effect heterogeneity due to diversity of participants; cost-efficiency through capitalizing on existing data; and ability to foster cooperative research and training of junior investigators. CSDs also present surmountable political, logistical and methodological challenges. Data harmonization may result in a reduced set of common data elements, but opportunities exist to leverage heterogeneous data across ICSs to investigate measurement error and residual confounding. Combining data from different study designs is an art, which motivates methods development. Diverse study samples, both across and within ICSs, prompt questions about the generalizability of results from CSDs. However, CSDs present unique opportunities to describe population health across person, place and time in a consistent fashion, and to explicitly generalize results to target populations of public health interest. Additional analytic challenges exist when analysing CSD data, because mechanisms by which systematic biases (e.g. information bias, confounding bias) arise may vary across ICSs, but multidisciplinary research teams are ready to tackle these challenges. CSDs are a powerful tool that, when properly harnessed, permits research that was not previously possible.

AB - Collaborative study designs (CSDs) that combine individual-level data from multiple independent contributing studies (ICSs) are becoming much more common due to their many advantages: increased statistical power through large sample sizes; increased ability to investigate effect heterogeneity due to diversity of participants; cost-efficiency through capitalizing on existing data; and ability to foster cooperative research and training of junior investigators. CSDs also present surmountable political, logistical and methodological challenges. Data harmonization may result in a reduced set of common data elements, but opportunities exist to leverage heterogeneous data across ICSs to investigate measurement error and residual confounding. Combining data from different study designs is an art, which motivates methods development. Diverse study samples, both across and within ICSs, prompt questions about the generalizability of results from CSDs. However, CSDs present unique opportunities to describe population health across person, place and time in a consistent fashion, and to explicitly generalize results to target populations of public health interest. Additional analytic challenges exist when analysing CSD data, because mechanisms by which systematic biases (e.g. information bias, confounding bias) arise may vary across ICSs, but multidisciplinary research teams are ready to tackle these challenges. CSDs are a powerful tool that, when properly harnessed, permits research that was not previously possible.

KW - Cohort studies

KW - Collaborative study design

KW - Data harmonization

KW - Heterogeneity

KW - Pooled analyses

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044230912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044230912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/IJE/DYX283

DO - 10.1093/IJE/DYX283

M3 - Article

C2 - 29438495

AN - SCOPUS:85044230912

VL - 47

SP - 654

EP - 668

JO - International Journal of Epidemiology

JF - International Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0300-5771

IS - 2

ER -