A comparison of three methods of analysis for age-period-cohort models with application to incidence data on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
A comparison of three methods of analysis for age-period-cohort models with application to incidence data on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ije/26.1.32
复制
发表时间：
1997-02-01
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Cartwright, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McNally, RJQ;Alexander, FE;Cartwright, RA
背景资料。各种分析方法被用来研究年龄-时期-队列模型。本文的主要目的是说明和比较克莱顿和希夫勒斯、罗伯逊和博伊尔以及德卡利和拉维奇亚的三种方法。这些方法之间的主要区别在于它们区分线性周期效应和线性队列效应的方法。克莱顿和希夫勒没有试图解决这个识别问题，而罗伯逊和博伊尔，德·卡利和拉维奇亚试图解决这个问题。为了研究这些方法的假设和问题，我们分析了英国约克郡的2678名年龄在30-84岁的受试者的数据，他们在1978-1991年期间被诊断为非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)。使用对数线性泊松模型检验年龄、时期和队列的影响。所有三种分析方法都同意，在对性别和县进行分层后，年龄标化率一直在以每年约5%的速度增长。Robertson-Boyle方法与Clayton-Schiffler方法的不同之处在于显示了显著的非线性队列效应和显著的县-队列交互作用。De Carli-La Vecchia法比Robertson-Boyle法更符合Clayton-Schiffler法。发病率的线性增长将导致15年内病例数量翻一番。辨认问题能否解决、是否应该解决，存在争议。许多作者不会依赖罗伯逊和博伊尔的方法，或者德卡利和拉维奇亚的方法的结果。
Background. Various methods of analysis have been used to study age-period-cohort models. The main aim of this paper is to illustrate and compare three such methods, Those of Clayton and Schifflers, Robertson and Boyle, and De Carli and La Vecchia. The main differences between these methods lie in their approach to distinguish between linear-period and linear-cohort effects. Clayton and Schifflers do not attempt to solve this identification problem, whereas Robertson and Boyle, and De Carli and La Vecchia attempt to tackle this question.Method. In order to study the assumptions and problems of these methods, we analysed data from 2678 subjects aged 30-84 in Yorkshire, UK, who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) during the period 1978-1991. Loglinear Poisson models were used to examine the effects of age, period and cohort.Results. All three methods of analysis agree that, after stratification for sex and county, the age-standardized rate has been increasing at about 5% per year. The Robertson-Boyle method differed from the Clayton-Schifflers method in showing a significant non-linear cohort effect, and a significant county-cohort interaction. The method of De Carli-La Vecchia agreed more closely with Clayton-Schifflers than with Robertson-Boyle.Conclusions. The linear increase in incidence would lead to a doubling of the number of cases within 15 years. There is controversy over whether the identification problem can be solved and should be solved. Many authors would not rely on the results of the methods of Robertson and Boyle, or De Carli and La Vecchia.