0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

Sibling Comparisons and Confounding in Autism Epidemiological Studies—Reply

Eileen A. Curran, MPH1; Louise C. Kenny, PhD, MRCOG1; Ali S. Khashan, PhD1,2
[+] Author Affiliations
1The Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research (INFANT), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
2Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(3):303. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2882.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

In Reply We published a study on mode of delivery, more specifically birth by cesarean section (CS), and the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).1 In it, we found that CS was associated with ASD in the population. However, the association was attenuated when we used a sibling design, and we concluded that CS was likely not a cause of ASD and a more probable explanation of the association was confounding.

Topics

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

March 1, 2016
Diana E. Schendel, PhD; Erik Parner, PhD
1Department of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark2Department of Economics and Business, National Centre for Register-based Research, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark3Lundbeck Foundation Initiative for Integrative Psychiatric Research, iPSYCH, Aarhus, Denmark
4Department of Public Health, Section for Biostatistics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(3):302-303. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2661.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Comment on the exchange between Schendel and Parner and Curran et al.
Posted on July 1, 2016
Craig Newschaffer
AJ Drexel Autism Institute Drexel University
Conflict of Interest: None.
The exchange between Schendel and Parner(1) and Curran et al (2,3) on the employment of sib-pair and non-sibling designs in examining the potential association between cesarean delivery and ASD risk reflect a favorable trend toward increased focus on causal inference in investigating associations between pre- and perinatal factors and ASD risk. However, Schendel and Parner’s statement that “risk estimates from sibling comparisons will be valid only in the absence of confounding from unshared factors… [and] more bias may be created [in sib-pair versus non-sibling designs] if unshared confounding factors are more important than shared factors”1 diminishes the potential benefit of sibling designs by over-emphasizing the subtle and minimizing the obvious.

The obvious here being that both sibling and non-sibling designs can be threatened by confounders that are not shared by siblings and both designs must endeavor to measure and adjust for them. If this is properly done in a sibling study, then the additional bias that Schendel and Parner emphasize in their comment is a non-issue. Furthermore, for the sib-pair design to have the potential of introducing additional bias from uncontrolled unshared confounders, the exposure needs to be correlated in siblings, which then opens a backdoor path when conditioning on discordant pairs in the sibling design.(4) It is not obvious how familial factors would have a direct effect on mode of delivery but there could be indirect familial effects though mediating factors like fetal growth, which is associated with cesarean delivery and likely influenced by familial genetics. Adjusted for such factors in the analysis of sib-pair data (as Curran et al did with fetal growth) block the opened backdoor path and eliminate any excess bias due to other unmeasured, unshared confounders. However, it is the residual confounding due to the unmeasured, unshared factors that is likely more of a causal inference concern and would be a worry even in a non-sibling design. Moreover, if the mediating factors are associated with autism risk, then they are confounders themselves demanding appropriate statistical control regardless of design (sib-pair or non-sibling design).


One can’t argue with Schendel and Parner’s conclusion that strengths and limitations of study designs should be carefully considered and compared, but the sib-pair design does bring with it strength over non-sibling designs with respect to controlling for shared confounders and, at the same time, users of non-sibling designs should be as concerned with the proper control of unshared confounders as users of sibling designs.


References

(1) Schendel DE, Parner E. Sibling Comparisons and Confounding in Autism
Epidemiological Studies. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Mar 1;73(3):302-3.

(2) Curran EA, Dalman C, Kearney PM, Kenny LC, Cryan JF, Dinan TG, Khashan AS.
Association Between Obstetric Mode of Delivery and Autism Spectrum Disorder: A
Population-Based Sibling Design Study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;72(9):935-42.

(3) Curran EA, Kenny LC, Khashan AS. Sibling Comparisons and Confounding in Autism Epidemiological Studies-Reply. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Mar 1;73(3):303.

(4) Frisell T, Öberg S, Kuja-Halkola R, Sjölander A. Sibling comparison designs:
bias from non-shared confounders and measurement error. Epidemiology. 2012
Sep;23(5):713-20.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

349 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();