Journal Information
Vol. 8. Issue 41.
Pages 85-93 (March - April 1994)
Vol. 8. Issue 41.
Pages 85-93 (March - April 1994)
Open Access
Estudios de mortalidad proporcional: criterios de elección de los grupos participantes
Proportional Mortality Studies: Election Criteria For Participating Groups
Visits
6018
Miguel Delgado Rodríguez1,2,*, María Sillero Arenas3, Ramón Gálvez Vargas1
1 Cátedra de Medicina Preventiva, Facultad de Medicina de Granada.
2 Hospital “Virgen de las Nieves”, Granada.
3 Delegación Provincial de Salud, Jaén.
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Resumen

Los estudios de mortalidad proporcional son una herramienta de uso común en epidemiología laboral. En esta revisión se discuten los principales sesgos que afectan a estos diseños, sobre todo el efecto del trabajador sano. Dentro del análisis, se realiza un recuerdo de las diferentes opciones: el análisis de mortalidad proporcional, la razón de mortalidad estandarizada y la razón de ventaja, y las condiciones que han de reunir para que la inferencia sea válida. Dentro de los criterios de selección, el empleo de sujetos muertos en una investigación condiciona la presencia de varios inconvenientes. Tomando como base un recuerdo breve de los hechos más destacados en el análisis de un estudio de mortalidad proporcional, se establece un primer criterio para la selección de los grupos participantes: ausencia de relación entre la exposición y las enfermedades productoras de muerte del grupo de referencia, un hecho compartido con los estudios de casos y controles. A continuación, tomando como base la relación existente entre las tasas de mortalidad y las de incidencia, se ofrecen los criterios generales a seguir en la elección de las enfermedades candidatas a ser estudiadas por este tipo de diseños sin afectar la inferencia. Este tipo de diseños no introducen error cuando la enfermedad de los casos es rara e irreversible y el sesgo es negativo cuando el factor que se estudia acorta la duración del proceso. En otras circunstancias el sesgo es variable, aunque normalmente es también negativo.

Palabras clave:
Métodos epidemiológicos
Epidemiología labora
Estudios de mortalidad proporcional
Summary

Proportional mortality designs are used widespread in occupational epidemiology. In this review those biases which can affect them, mainly the healthy worker bias, are discussed. Several options for their analysis and the assumptions to be accomplished for validity are reviewed: proportionate mortality analysis, stardardized mortality ratio, and odds ratio. The Inclusion of dead participants in a research exhibits several drawbacks. Starting out from the analysis of this sort of designs, the first criterium to select diseases is similar to case-control studies: the reference group must not include diseases related with the exposure under study. Analyzing the relationship between mortallity and incidence rates, criteria to select diseases to be investigated by proportional mortality studies are offered. These designs yield a valid inference when the disease is rare and irreversible. If the exposure shortens duration of disease, atoward-the-null bias is introduced. The direction of bias is variable under other circumstances, although it shows a trend to be negative.

Key Words:
Epidemiologic methods
Occupational epidemiology
Proportional mortality studies
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Biblografía
[1.]
R.R. Monson.
Occupational Epidemiology.
2a ed,
[2.]
O.S. Miettinen, J.-D. Wang.
An alternative to the proportionate mortality ratio.
Am J Epidemiol, 114 (1981), pp. 144-148
[3.]
O.S. Miettinen.
Theoretical Epidemiology. Principles of Ocurrence Research in Medicine.
[4.]
H. Checkoway, N.E. Pearse, D.J. Crawford-Brown.
Research Methods in Occupational Epidemiology.
[5.]
K.J. Rohman.
Modern Epidemiology.
[6.]
A.J. Fox, P.F. Collier.
Low mortality rates in industrial cohort studies due to selection for work and survival in the industry.
Br J Prev Soc Med, 30 (1976), pp. 225-230
[7.]
G.R. Howe, A.M. Chiarelli, J.P. Lindsay.
Components and modifiers of the healthy worker effect: evidence from three occupational cohorts and implication for industrial compensation.
Am J Epidemiol, 128 (1988), pp. 1364-1375
[8.]
R.R. Monson.
Observations on the healthy worker effect.
J Occup Med, 28 (1986), pp. 425-433
[9.]
J.R. Goldsmith.
What do we expect from an occupational cohort.
J Occup Med, 17 (1975), pp. 126-131
[10.]
E.S. Hansen.
The proportionate mortality ratio and its relationship with measures of mortality.
Stat Med, 9 (1990), pp. 315-323
[11.]
W.J. Schade, G.M. Swanson.
Comparison of death certificate, occupation and industry data with lifetime occupational histories obtained by interview: variations in the accuracy of death certificate entries.
Am J Ind Med, 14 (1988), pp. 121-136
[12.]
F. Sitas, A.J. Douglas, E.C. Webster.
Respiratory disease mortality patterns among South African iron moulders.
Br J Ind Med, 46 (1989), pp. 310-315
[13.]
M. Silverstein, R. Park, M. Marmor, N. Maizlish, F. Mirer.
Mortality among bearing plant workers exposed to metalworking fluids and abrasives.
J Occup Med, 30 (1988), pp. 706-714
[14.]
L.L. Kupper, A.J. McMichael, M.J. Symons, B.M. Most.
On the utility of proportional mortality analysis.
J Chron Dis, 31 (1978), pp. 15-22
[15.]
P. Decoufté, T.L. Thomas, L.W. Pickle.
Comparison of the proportional mortality ratio and standardized mortality ratio risk measures.
Am J Epidemiol, 111 (1980), pp. 263-269
[16.]
O. Wong, P. Decouflé.
Methodological issues involving the standardized mortality ratio and proportionate mortality ratio in occupational studies.
J Occup Med, 24 (1982), pp. 299-304
[17.]
S.D. Walter.
Cause-deleted proportional mortality analysis and the healthy worker effect.
Stat Med, 5 (1986), pp. 61-71
[18.]
E.A. Zeighami, M.D. Morris.
The measurement and interpretation of proportionate mortality.
Am J Epidemiol, 117 (1983), pp. 90-97
[19.]
R.M. Park, N.A. Maizlish, L. Punnett, R. Moure-Eraso, M.A. Silverstein.
A comparison of PMRs and SMRs as estimators of occupational mortality.
Epidemiology, 2 (1991), pp. 49-59
[20.]
E. Roman, V. Beral, h. Inskip.
A comparison of standardized and proportional mortality ratios.
Stat Med, 3 (1984), pp. 7-14
[21.]
S. Greenland.
Bias in indirectly adjusted comparisons due to taking the total study population as the reference group.
Stat Med, 6 (1987), pp. 193-195
[22.]
F. Levi, E. Negri, C. La Vecchia, V.C. Te.
Socioeconomic groups and cancer risk at death in the Swiss Canton of Vaud.
Int J Epidemiol, 17 (1988), pp. 711-717
[23.]
O.S. Miettinen.
The “case-control” study: valid selection of subjects.
J Chron Dis, 38 (1986), pp. 543-548
[24.]
W.J. Butler, R.M. Park.
Use of the logistic regression model for the analysis of proportionate mortality data.
Am J Epidemiol, 125 (1987), pp. 515-523
[25.]
J.M. Robins, D. Blevins.
Analysis of proportionate mortality data using logistic regression models.
Am J Epidemiol, 125 (1987), pp. 524-535
[26.]
J.M. Robins.
The control of confounding by intermediate variables.
Stat Med, 8 (1989), pp. 679-701
[27.]
J.M. Robins, S. Greenland.
Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects.
Epidemiology, 3 (1992), pp. 143-155
[28.]
S. Wacholder, J.k. McLaughlin, D.t. Silverman, J.S. Mandel.
Selection of controls in case-controls studies. I. Principles.
Am J Epidemiol, 135 (1992), pp. 1019-1028
[29.]
N. Pierce, H. Checkoway.
Case-control studies using other diseases as controls: problems of excluding exposure-related diseases.
Am J Epidemiol, 127 (1988), pp. 851-856
[30.]
O.S. Miettinen.
The concept of secondary base.
J Clin Epidemiol, 43 (1990), pp. 1016-1017
[31.]
L. Gordis.
Should dead cases be matched to dead controls?.
Am J Epidemiol, 115 (1982), pp. 1-5
[32.]
J.K. McLaughlin, W.J. Blot, E.S. Mehl, J.S. Mendel.
Problems in the use of dead controls in case-control studies. I. General results.
Am J Epidemiol, 121 (1985), pp. 131-139
[33.]
J.K. McLaughlin, W.J. Blot, E.S. Mehl, J.S. Mandel.
Problems in the use of dead controls in case-controls studies. II. Effect of excluding certain causes of death.
Am J Epidemiol, 122 (1985), pp. 485-494
[34.]
S. Wacholder, J.K. McLaughlin, D.T. Silverman, J.S. Mandel.
Selection of controls in case-control studies. II. Types of controls.
Am J Epidemiol, 135 (1992), pp. 1029-1041
[35.]
S. Greenland.
Concepts of validity in epidemiological research.
Oxford Textbook of Public Health, 2ª ed., pp. 268
[36.]
R.I. Horwitz, A.R. Feinstein.
Methodologie standards and contradictory results in case-control research.
Am J Med, 66 (1979), pp. 556-564
[37.]
R.L. Prentice.
A case-cohort design for epidemiologic studies and disease prevention trials.
Biometrika, 73 (1986), pp. 1-11
[38.]
A.S. Morrison.
Sequential pathogenic components of rates.
Am J Epidemiol, 109 (1979), pp. 709-718
[39.]
D.G. Keinbaum, L.L. Kupper, H. Morgenstern.
Epidemiologic Research. Principles of Quantitative Research.
Copyright © 1994. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Download PDF
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?