Marital status and risk of cardiovascular disease – a multi-analyst study in epidemiology

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bernd Kowall, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt, Jale Basten, Heiko Becher, Tilman Brand, Julia Braun, Swaantje Casjens, Heiner Claessen, Robin Denz, Hans H. Diebner, Sophie Diexer, Nora Eisemann, Eva Furrer, Wolfgang Galetzka, Carolin Girschik, André Karch, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Manuela Peters, Susanne Rospleszcz, Viktoria Rücker, Andreas Stang, Susanne Stolpe, Katherine J. Taylor, Nina Timmesfeld, Marianne Tokic, Hajo Zeeb, Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, Thomas Behrens, Till Ittermann, Nicole Rübsamen
{"title":"Marital status and risk of cardiovascular disease – a multi-analyst study in epidemiology","authors":"Bernd Kowall, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt, Jale Basten, Heiko Becher, Tilman Brand, Julia Braun, Swaantje Casjens, Heiner Claessen, Robin Denz, Hans H. Diebner, Sophie Diexer, Nora Eisemann, Eva Furrer, Wolfgang Galetzka, Carolin Girschik, André Karch, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Manuela Peters, Susanne Rospleszcz, Viktoria Rücker, Andreas Stang, Susanne Stolpe, Katherine J. Taylor, Nina Timmesfeld, Marianne Tokic, Hajo Zeeb, Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, Thomas Behrens, Till Ittermann, Nicole Rübsamen","doi":"10.1007/s10654-025-01235-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In multi-analyst studies, several analysts use the same data to independently investigate identical research questions. Multi-analyst studies have been conducted mainly in psychology, social sciences, and neuroscience, but rarely in epidemiology. Sixteen analyst groups (24 researchers) with backgrounds mainly in statistics, mathematics, and epidemiology were asked to independently perform an analysis on the influence of marital status (never married versus cohabiting married) on cardiovascular outcomes. They were asked to use data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), a panel study of 140,000 persons aged 50 years and above from 28 European countries and Israel, and to provide an effect estimate, a comment on their results, and the full syntax of their analyses. In additional analyses beyond the multi-analyst approach, one group selected an exemplary regression model and varied definitions of exposure and outcome and the confounder adjustment set. Each analysis was unique. The size of the 16 datasets used for the analyses ranged from 15,592 to 336,914 observations. The effect estimates (odds ratios, hazard ratios, or relative risks) ranged from 0.72 to 1.02 (reference: cohabiting married) in strictly or partly cross-sectional analyses and from 0.95 to 1.31 in strictly longitudinal analyses. The choice of regression models, adjustment sets for confounding, and variations in the precise definition of exposure and outcome, all had only small effects on the effect estimates. The range of results was mainly due to differences from cross-sectional versus longitudinal analyses rather than to single analytical decisions each of which had less influence.</p>","PeriodicalId":11907,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Epidemiology","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-025-01235-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In multi-analyst studies, several analysts use the same data to independently investigate identical research questions. Multi-analyst studies have been conducted mainly in psychology, social sciences, and neuroscience, but rarely in epidemiology. Sixteen analyst groups (24 researchers) with backgrounds mainly in statistics, mathematics, and epidemiology were asked to independently perform an analysis on the influence of marital status (never married versus cohabiting married) on cardiovascular outcomes. They were asked to use data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), a panel study of 140,000 persons aged 50 years and above from 28 European countries and Israel, and to provide an effect estimate, a comment on their results, and the full syntax of their analyses. In additional analyses beyond the multi-analyst approach, one group selected an exemplary regression model and varied definitions of exposure and outcome and the confounder adjustment set. Each analysis was unique. The size of the 16 datasets used for the analyses ranged from 15,592 to 336,914 observations. The effect estimates (odds ratios, hazard ratios, or relative risks) ranged from 0.72 to 1.02 (reference: cohabiting married) in strictly or partly cross-sectional analyses and from 0.95 to 1.31 in strictly longitudinal analyses. The choice of regression models, adjustment sets for confounding, and variations in the precise definition of exposure and outcome, all had only small effects on the effect estimates. The range of results was mainly due to differences from cross-sectional versus longitudinal analyses rather than to single analytical decisions each of which had less influence.

婚姻状况和心血管疾病的风险——流行病学的一项多分析师研究
在多分析师研究中,几个分析师使用相同的数据独立调查相同的研究问题。多分析师研究主要在心理学、社会科学和神经科学领域进行,但很少在流行病学领域进行。以统计学、数学和流行病学为主要背景的16个分析小组(24名研究人员)被要求独立分析婚姻状况(未婚与同居)对心血管结果的影响。他们被要求使用来自欧洲健康、老龄化和退休调查(SHARE)的数据,这是一项对来自28个欧洲国家和以色列的14万名50岁及以上的人进行的小组研究,并提供效果估计、对其结果的评论以及分析的完整语法。在多分析师方法之外的其他分析中,一组选择了一个典型的回归模型,并对暴露和结果以及混杂调整集进行了不同的定义。每次分析都是独一无二的。用于分析的16个数据集的大小从15,592到336,914个观测值不等。在严格或部分横断面分析中,效应估计(优势比、风险比或相对风险)范围为0.72至1.02(参考:同居已婚),在严格的纵向分析中范围为0.95至1.31。回归模型的选择、混淆的调整集以及暴露和结果的精确定义的变化,都对效果估计只有很小的影响。结果的范围主要是由于横断面分析与纵向分析的差异,而不是单个分析决策的影响较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
1.50%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1985, is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for discussions on epidemiology in its broadest sense. It covers various aspects of epidemiologic research and statistical methods. The journal facilitates communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners in epidemiology, including those in clinical and community medicine. Contributions from diverse fields such as public health, preventive medicine, clinical medicine, health economics, and computational biology and data science, in relation to health and disease, are encouraged. While accepting submissions from all over the world, the journal particularly emphasizes European topics relevant to epidemiology. The published articles consist of empirical research findings, developments in methodology, and opinion pieces.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信