How Generalizable Are Findings from a Community-Based Prospective Cohort Study? Extending Estimates from the Adult Changes in Thought Study to Its Source Population

Author:

Gibbons Laura E.1,Mobley Taylor2,Mayeda Elizabeth Rose2,Lee Cecilia S.34,Gatto Nicole M.5,LaCroix Andrea Z.6,McEvoy Linda K.5,Crane Paul K.1,Hayes-Larson Eleanor2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

2. Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

4. Roger and Angie Karalis Johnson Retina Center, Seattle, WA, USA

5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA

6. Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Abstract

Background: The Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study is a cohort of Kaiser Permanente Washington members ages 65+ that began in 1994. Objective: We wanted to know how well ACT participants represented all older adults in the region, and how well ACT findings on eye disease and its relationship with Alzheimer’s disease generalized to all older adults in the Seattle Metropolitan Region. Methods: We used participation weights derived from pooling ACT and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to estimate prevalences of common eye diseases and their associations with Alzheimer’s disease incidence. Cox proportional hazards models accounted for age, education, smoking, sex, and APOE genotype. Confidence intervals for weighted analyses were bootstrapped to account for error in estimating the weights. Results: ACT participants were fairly similar to older adults in the region. The largest differences were more self-reported current cholesterol medication use in BRFSS and higher proportions with low education in ACT. Incorporating the weights had little impact on prevalence estimates for age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma. Weighted estimates were slightly higher for diabetic retinopathy (weighted 5.7% (95% Confidence Interval 4.3, 7.1); unweighted 4.1% (3.6, 4.6)) and cataract history (weighted 51.8% (49.6, 54.3); unweighted 48.6% (47.3, 49.9)). The weighted hazard ratio for recent diabetic retinopathy diagnosis and Alzheimer’s disease was 1.84 (0.34, 4.29), versus 1.32 (0.87, 2.00) in unweighted ACT. Conclusions: Most, but not all, associations were similar after participation weighting. Even in community-based cohorts, extending inferences to broader populations may benefit from evaluation with participation weights.

Publisher

IOS Press

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3