Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology

Clicks: 1
ID: 297295
2016
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #125 of 133 articles by views in International Journal of Epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Triangulation is the practice of obtaining more reliable answers to research questions through integrating results from several different approaches, where each approach has different key sources of potential bias that are unrelated to each other. With respect to causal questions in aetiological epidemiology, if the results of different approaches all point to the same conclusion, this strengthens confidence in the finding. This is particularly the case when the key sources of bias of some of the approaches would predict that findings would point in opposite directions if they were due to such biases. Where there are inconsistencies, understanding the key sources of bias of each approach can help to identify what further research is required to address the causal question. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how triangulation might be used to improve causal inference in aetiological epidemiology. We propose a minimum set of criteria for use in triangulation in aetiological epidemiology, summarize the key sources of bias of several approaches and describe how these might be integrated within a triangulation framework. We emphasize the importance of being explicit about the expected direction of bias within each approach, whenever this is possible, and seeking to identify approaches that would be expected to bias the true causal effect in different directions. We also note the importance, when comparing results, of taking account of differences in the duration and timing of exposures. We provide three examples to illustrate these points.
Reference Key
openalex_W2579779633 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Debbie A. Lawlor, Kate Tilling, George Davey Smith
Journal International Journal of Epidemiology
Year 2016
DOI
10.1093/ije/dyw314
URL
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/45/6/1866/32531204/dyw314.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.