z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Causal diagrams and the cross-sectional study
Author(s) -
Eyal Shahar,
Shahar
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
clinical epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.868
H-Index - 58
ISSN - 1179-1349
DOI - 10.2147/clep.s42843
Subject(s) - confounding , context (archaeology) , cross sectional study , selection bias , causal inference , causation , econometrics , causality (physics) , information bias , medicine , statistics , mathematics , pathology , quantum mechanics , paleontology , physics , political science , law , biology
The cross-sectional study design is sometimes avoided by researchers or considered an undesired methodology. Possible reasons include incomplete understanding of the research design, fear of bias, and uncertainty about the measure of association. Using causal diagrams and certain premises, we compared a hypothetical cross-sectional study of the effect of a fertility drug on pregnancy with a hypothetical cohort study. A side-by-side analysis showed that both designs call for a tradeoff between information bias and variance and that neither offers immunity to sampling colliding bias (selection bias). Confounding bias does not discriminate between the two designs either. Uncertainty about the order of causation (ambiguous temporality) depends on the nature of the postulated cause and the measurement method. We conclude that a cross-sectional study is not inherently inferior to a cohort study. Rather than devaluing the cross-sectional design, threats of bias should be evaluated in the context of a concrete study, the causal question at hand, and a theoretical causal structure.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom