PBH321 M4D1 EPIDEMIOLOGY CHOOSING THE RIGHT STUDY DESIGN: DIGGING DEEPER INTO REAL LIFE SCENARIOS

PBH321: INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY MAY2020

M4D1: Choosing the Right Study Design: Digging Deeper into Real Life Scenarios
No unread replies.No replies.
Module 4

By the end of this activity, you will be able to compare and contrast experimental and cross-sectional study designs for answering a research question.

This week, we’ll begin the discussions by exploring real life examples of experimental and cross sectional studies. Remember that an active discussion is key to an engaging discussion. Be sure to read what others have written and add substantively to the discussion. Time goes fast so start right away!

The first question is based on what you have learned this term so you can engage in discussion immediately.

How would you react if approached to be a participant in an epidemiologic study? How might the association of interest matter in your decision to participate?
For the rest of the discussion, your task is to compare and contrast the paper by Lane et al. – Tanezumab for the Treatment of Pain from Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Links to an external site.) [PDF, File Size 602KB] with the paper by Mussolino et al. – Jogging and Bone Mineral Density in Men: Results from NHANES III (Links to an external site.) [PDF, File Size 69.5KB].

For Your Consideration: As you review these studies, think about the differences in the study designs and approach to answering their respective research questions. Think about the strengths and limitations of each design. Consider the benefits or disadvantages of each design. Consider how the research question might affect the type of study design we choose. Maybe consider if the experimental study could have been conducted using a cross-sectional approach. Similarly, consider the research question answered in the cross-sectional study and if that could lend itself to an experimental design. Think about the limitations one design might have compared to its alternative. You should also consider feasibility, cost, or other considerations you imagine an investigator might have.

Make sure to also review the module notes and readings in the text.

Now applying what you’ve learned from the readings, let’s go through the rest of the discussion together, one question at a time.

After completing your readings, answer the questions below.

Could the research question addressed in the study by Lane et al. have been conducted using a cross-sectional design? Why or why not? What would be some of the potential advantages/disadvantages of using this alternative design?
Could a relationship between jogging and bone mineral density in the study by Mussolino et al. have been evaluated using an experimental approach? Why or why not? What would be some of the potential advantages/disadvantages of using this alternative design?
Make the subject line of your post interesting and relevant to its content. This means that you do not simply put “re:” or type in a person’s name that is already clear from the thread. Instead, if you type a full sentence or long enough phrase that the point of your post will be clear. This tip for using the subject line effectively will make navigating all discussion threads easy and meaningful.Read:

Required
Module Notes: Experimental, Ecologic, and Cross Sectional Studies
Friis Text: Chapter 5 pages 107-108 (Types of Descriptive Epidemiology Studies section)
Friis Text: Chapters 6 pages: 148-152 (Introduction and Ecologic Studies sections), 158-161 (Experimental Studies section)
Jogging and Bone Mineral Density in Men: Results from NHANES III (Links to an external site.) [PDF, File Size 70KB] (Mussolino, Looker, & Orwoll, 2001)
Tanezumab for the Treatment of Pain from Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Links to an external site.) [PDF, File Size 603KB] (Lane et al., 2010)
Optional
Human Rabies — Wyoming and Utah, 2015 (Links to an external site.) (Harrist et al., 2016)
Malaria deaths in visitors to Canada and in Canadian travellers: a case series (Links to an external site.) (Kain et al., 2001)
Discuss: