4.5 Article

Does selection bias explain the obesity paradox among individuals with cardiovascular disease?

Journal

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 342-349

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.02.008

Keywords

Obesity; Cardiovascular disease; Selection bias; Sensitivity analysis

Funding

  1. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec
  2. CIHR Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health Skills Development Award
  3. Canada Research Chair program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The objectives of this article are to demonstrate that the obesity paradox may be explained by collider stratification bias and to estimate the biasing effects of unmeasured common causes of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality on the observed obesity-mortality relationship. Methods: We use directed acyclic graphs, regression modeling, and sensitivity analyses to explore whether the observed protective effect of obesity among individuals with CVD can be plausibly attributed to selection bias. Data from the third National Health and Examination Survey was used for the analyses. Results: The adjusted total effect of obesity on mortality was a risk difference (RD) of 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.05). However, the controlled direct effect of obesity on mortality among individuals without CVD was RD = 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.05) and RD = 0.12 (95% CI: -0.20, -0.04) among individuals with CVD. The adjusted total effect estimate demonstrates an increased number of deaths among obese individuals relative to nonobese counterparts, whereas the controlled direct effect shows a paradoxical decrease in morality among obese individuals with CVD. Conclusions: Sensitivity analysis demonstrates unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship provides a sufficient explanation for the observed protective effect of obesity on mortality among individuals with CVD. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available