Evaluation of Selection Bias in an Internet-based Study of Pregnancy Planners
- PMID: 26484423
- PMCID: PMC4819248
- DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000400
Evaluation of Selection Bias in an Internet-based Study of Pregnancy Planners
Abstract
Selection bias is a potential concern in all epidemiologic studies, but it is usually difficult to assess. Recently, concerns have been raised that internet-based prospective cohort studies may be particularly prone to selection bias. Although use of the internet is efficient and facilitates recruitment of subjects that are otherwise difficult to enroll, any compromise in internal validity would be of great concern. Few studies have evaluated selection bias in internet-based prospective cohort studies. Using data from the Danish Medical Birth Registry from 2008 to 2012, we compared six well-known perinatal associations (e.g., smoking and birth weight) in an internet-based preconception cohort (Snart Gravid n = 4,801) with the total population of singleton live births in the registry (n = 239,791). We used log-binomial models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each association. We found that most results in both populations were very similar. For example, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk of delivering a macrosomic infant in Snart Gravid (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7) and the total population (RR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.45, 1.53), and maternal smoking of >10 cigarettes per day was associated with a higher risk of low birth weight (RR = 2.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 5.9 vs. RR = 2.9; 95% CI: 2.6, 3.1) in Snart Gravid and the total population, respectively. We cannot be certain that our results would apply to other associations or different populations. Nevertheless, our results suggest that recruitment of reproductive aged women via the internet may be no more prone to selection bias than traditional methods of recruitment.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Prospective study of time to pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes.Fertil Steril. 2015 Apr;103(4):1065-1073.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.024. Epub 2015 Feb 20. Fertil Steril. 2015. PMID: 25707334 Free PMC article.
-
Self-selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009 Nov;23(6):597-608. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01062.x. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009. PMID: 19840297
-
Design and Conduct of an Internet-Based Preconception Cohort Study in North America: Pregnancy Study Online.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;29(4):360-71. doi: 10.1111/ppe.12201. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015. PMID: 26111445 Free PMC article.
-
Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.Fertil Steril. 2016 Jan;105(1):73-85.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007. Epub 2015 Oct 9. Fertil Steril. 2016. PMID: 26453266 Review.
-
How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Apr;97(4):407-416. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13319. Epub 2018 Mar 5. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018. PMID: 29415329 Review.
Cited by
-
Validation of a Visual Analogue Scale to measure the subjective perception of orgasmic intensity in females: The Orgasmometer-F.PLoS One. 2018 Aug 29;13(8):e0202076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202076. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 30157203 Free PMC article.
-
A prospective study of influenza vaccination and time to pregnancy.Vaccine. 2020 Jun 2;38(27):4246-4251. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.054. Epub 2020 May 11. Vaccine. 2020. PMID: 32409134 Free PMC article.
-
Association between job control and time to pregnancy in a preconception cohort.Fertil Steril. 2024 Mar;121(3):497-505. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.11.022. Epub 2023 Nov 28. Fertil Steril. 2024. PMID: 38036244 Free PMC article.
-
Association of income and education with fecundability in a North American preconception cohort.Ann Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;50:41-47.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.07.004. Epub 2020 Jul 15. Ann Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 32681982 Free PMC article.
-
Bias from self selection and loss to follow-up in prospective cohort studies.Eur J Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;34(10):927-938. doi: 10.1007/s10654-019-00550-1. Epub 2019 Aug 26. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 31451995
References
-
- Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Validity in epidemiologic studies. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
-
- Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;106:184–187. - PubMed
-
- Olsen J. Random sampling: is it worth it? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27:27–28. - PubMed
-
- Nohr EA, Olsen J. Commentary: epidemiologists have debated representativeness for more than 40 years–has the time come to move on? Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1016–1017. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical