Bradford Hill criteria

Last updated

The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of nine principles that can be useful in establishing epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect and have been widely used in public health research. They were established in 1965 by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. [1]

Contents

In 1996, David Fredricks and David Relman remarked on Hill's criteria in their pivotal paper on microbial pathogenesis. [2]

Definition

In 1965, the English statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill proposed a set of nine criteria to provide epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. (For example, he demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.) The list of the criteria is as follows: [1]

  1. Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
  2. Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
  3. Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship. [1]
  4. Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
  5. Biological gradient (dose–response relationship): Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence. [1]
  6. Plausibility : A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
  7. Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".
  8. Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".
  9. Analogy: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.

Some authors [3] consider, also, Reversibility: If the cause is deleted then the effect should disappear as well.

Debate in epidemiology

All scientific work is incomplete. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.

—Bradford Hill, on the fallacy of persisting with existing research and rules. [4]

Bradford Hill's criteria had been widely accepted as useful guidelines for investigating causality in epidemiological studies but their value has been questioned because they have become somewhat outdated. [5]

In addition, their method of application is debated.[ citation needed ] Some proposed options how to apply them include:

  1. Using a counterfactual consideration as the basis for applying each criterion. [6]
  2. Subdividing them into three categories: direct, mechanistic and parallel evidence, expected to complement each other. This operational reformulation of the criteria has been recently proposed in the context of evidence-based medicine. [7]
  3. Considering confounding factors and bias. [8]
  4. Using Hill’s criteria as a guide, but not considering them to give definitive conclusions. [9]
  5. Separating causal association and interventions, because interventions in public health are more complex than can be evaluated by use of Hill’s criteria [10]

An argument against the use of Bradford Hill criteria as exclusive considerations in proving causality is that the basic mechanism of proving causality is not in applying specific criteria—whether those of Bradford Hill or counterfactual argument—but in scientific common sense deduction. [11] Others argue that the specific study from which data has been produced is important, and while the Bradford Hill criteria may be applied to test causality in these scenarios, the study type may rule out deducing or inducing causality, and the criteria are only of use in inferring the best explanation of this data. [12]

Debate over the scope of application of the criteria includes, whether they can be applied to social sciences. [13] The argument proposes that there are different motives behind defining causality; the Bradford Hill criteria applied to complex systems such as health sciences are useful in prediction models where a consequence is sought; explanation models as to why causation occurred are deduced less easily from Bradford Hill criteria because the instigation of causation, rather than the consequence, is needed for these models.[ citation needed ]

Examples of application

Researchers have applied Hill’s criteria for causality in examining the evidence in several areas of epidemiology, including connections between exposures to molds and infant pulmonary hemorrhage, [14] ultraviolet B radiation, vitamin D and cancer, [15] [16] vitamin D and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, [17] alcohol and cardiovascular disease outcomes, [18] infections and risk of stroke, [19] nutrition and biomarkers related to disease outcomes, [20] foods and nutrients related to cardiovascular disease and diabetes [21] and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. [22] They have also been used in non-human epidemiological studies, such as on the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees. [23] Their use in quality improvement of health care services has been proposed, highlighting how quality improvement methods can be used to provide evidence for the criteria. [24]

Since the description of the criteria, many methods to systematically evaluate the evidence supporting a causal relationship have been published, for example the five evidence-grading criteria of the World Cancer Research Fund (Convincing; Probable; Limited evidence – suggestive; Limited evidence – no conclusion; Substantial effect on risk unlikely). [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

Causality is an influence by which one event, process, state, or object (acause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is at least partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is at least partly dependent on the cause. The cause of something may also be described as the reason for the event or process.

The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc. This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event, and from conflation, the errant merging of two events, ideas, databases, etc., into one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Epidemiology</span> Study of health and disease within a population

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution, patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Koch's postulates</span> Four criteria showing a causal relationship between a causative microbe and a disease

Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle, and the statements were refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis, both of which are now ascribed to bacteria. The postulates have been controversially generalized to other diseases. More modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis cannot be examined using Koch's postulates, including viruses and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health and the Molecular Koch's postulates for microbial pathogenesis.

The science of epidemiology has matured significantly from the times of Hippocrates, Semmelweis and John Snow. The techniques for gathering and analyzing epidemiological data vary depending on the type of disease being monitored but each study will have overarching similarities.

In pathology, pathogenesis is the process by which a disease or disorder develops. It can include factors which contribute not only to the onset of the disease or disorder, but also to its progression and maintenance. The word comes from Ancient Greek πάθος (pathos) 'suffering, disease' and γένεσις (genesis) 'creation'.

A case–control study is a type of observational study in which two existing groups differing in outcome are identified and compared on the basis of some supposed causal attribute. Case–control studies are often used to identify factors that may contribute to a medical condition by comparing subjects who have the condition with patients who do not have the condition but are otherwise similar. They require fewer resources but provide less evidence for causal inference than a randomized controlled trial. A case–control study is often used to produce an odds ratio. Some statistical methods make it possible to use a case–control study to also estimate relative risk, risk differences, and other quantities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Austin Bradford Hill</span> English epidemiologist and statistician (1897–1991)

Sir Austin Bradford Hill was an English epidemiologist who pioneered the modern randomised clinical trial and, together with Richard Doll, demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Hill is widely known for pioneering the "Bradford Hill" criteria for determining a causal association.

Wesley Charles Salmon was an American philosopher of science renowned for his work on the nature of scientific explanation. He also worked on confirmation theory, trying to explicate how probability theory via inductive logic might help confirm and choose hypotheses. Yet most prominently, Salmon was a realist about causality in scientific explanation, although his realist explanation of causality drew ample criticism. Still, his books on scientific explanation itself were landmarks of the 20th century's philosophy of science, and solidified recognition of causality's important roles in scientific explanation, whereas causality itself has evaded satisfactory elucidation by anyone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confounding</span> Variable or factor in causal inference

In causal inference, a confounder is a variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association. Confounding is a causal concept, and as such, cannot be described in terms of correlations or associations. The existence of confounders is an important quantitative explanation why correlation does not imply causation. Some notations are explicitly designed to identify the existence, possible existence, or non-existence of confounders in causal relationships between elements of a system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Causal model</span> Conceptual model in philosophy of science

In metaphysics, a causal model is a conceptual model that describes the causal mechanisms of a system. Several types of causal notation may be used in the development of a causal model. Causal models can improve study designs by providing clear rules for deciding which independent variables need to be included/controlled for.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mendelian randomization</span> Statistical method in genetic epidemiology

In epidemiology, Mendelian randomization is a method using measured variation in genes to examine the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Under key assumptions, the design reduces both reverse causation and confounding, which often substantially impede or mislead the interpretation of results from epidemiological studies.

Environmental epidemiology is a branch of epidemiology concerned with determining how environmental exposures impact human health. This field seeks to understand how various external risk factors may predispose to or protect against disease, illness, injury, developmental abnormalities, or death. These factors may be naturally occurring or may be introduced into environments where people live, work, and play.

Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect. Typically it involves establishing four elements: correlation, sequence in time, a plausible physical or information-theoretical mechanism for an observed effect to follow from a possible cause, and eliminating the possibility of common and alternative ("special") causes. Such analysis usually involves one or more artificial or natural experiments.

In epidemiology and biomedicine, biological plausibility is the proposal of a causal association—a relationship between a putative cause and an outcome—that is consistent with existing biological and medical knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nutritional epidemiology</span> Field of medical research on disease and diet

Nutritional epidemiology examines dietary and nutritional factors in relation to disease occurrence at a population level. Nutritional epidemiology is a relatively new field of medical research that studies the relationship between nutrition and health. It is a young discipline in epidemiology that is continuing to grow in relevance to present-day health concerns. Diet and physical activity are difficult to measure accurately, which may partly explain why nutrition has received less attention than other risk factors for disease in epidemiology.

Cause, also known as etiology and aetiology, is the reason or origination of something.

Causal inference is the process of determining the independent, actual effect of a particular phenomenon that is a component of a larger system. The main difference between causal inference and inference of association is that causal inference analyzes the response of an effect variable when a cause of the effect variable is changed. The study of why things occur is called etiology, and can be described using the language of scientific causal notation. Causal inference is said to provide the evidence of causality theorized by causal reasoning.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic epidemiology</span>

The discipline of forensic epidemiology (FE) is a hybrid of principles and practices common to both forensic medicine and epidemiology. FE is directed at filling the gap between clinical judgment and epidemiologic data for determinations of causality in civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution and defense.

Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistical analysis pertaining to establishing cause and effect. Exploratory causal analysis (ECA), also known as data causality or causal discovery is the use of statistical algorithms to infer associations in observed data sets that are potentially causal under strict assumptions. ECA is a type of causal inference distinct from causal modeling and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials. It is exploratory research usually preceding more formal causal research in the same way exploratory data analysis often precedes statistical hypothesis testing in data analysis

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Hill, Austin Bradford (1965). "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine . 58 (5): 295–300. doi:10.1177/003591576505800503. PMC   1898525 . PMID   14283879.
  2. ↑ Fredricks, David; Relman, David (January 1996). "Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch's Postulates". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 9 (1): 18–33. doi:10.1128/CMR.9.1.18. PMC   172879 . PMID   8665474.
  3. ↑ Howick J, Kelly P, Kelly M (2019). "Establishing a causal link between social relationships and health using the Bradford Hill Guidelines". SSM Popul Health. 8: 100402. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100402. PMC   6527915 . PMID   31193417.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ↑ Christopher, Ben (21 Sep 2016). "Why the Father of Modern Statistics Didn't Believe Smoking Caused Cancer". Priceonomics. Archived from the original on 5 February 2022.
  5. ↑ Schünemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G; et al. (2011). "The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation". Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 65 (5): 392–95. doi:10.1136/jech.2010.119933. PMID   20947872. S2CID   206990828.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Höfler M (2005). "The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective?". Emerging Themes in Epidemiology . 2 (1): 11. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-2-11 . PMC   1291382 . PMID   16269083.
  7. ↑ Howick J, Glasziou P, Aronson JK (2009). "The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's 'guidelines for causation' contribute?". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . 102 (5): 186–94. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2009.090020. PMC   2677430 . PMID   19417051.
  8. ↑ Glass TA, Goodman SN, Hernán MA, Samet JM (2013). "Causal inference in public health". Annu Rev Public Health . 34: 61–75. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124606. PMC   4079266 . PMID   23297653.
  9. ↑ Potischman N, Weed DL (1999). "Causal criteria in nutritional epidemiology". Am J Clin Nutr . 69 (6): 1309S –14S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/69.6.1309S . PMID   10359231.
  10. ↑ Rothman KJ, Greenland S (2005). "Causation and causal inference in epidemiology". Am J Public Health . 95 (Suppl 1): S144–50. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204. hdl: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204 . PMID   16030331.
  11. ↑ Phillips, CV; Goodman KJ (2006). "Causal criteria and counterfactuals; nothing more (or less) than scientific common sense?". Emerging Themes in Epidemiology . 3 (1): 5. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-5 . PMC   1488839 . PMID   16725053.
  12. ↑ Ward, AC (2009). "The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's "aspects of association". Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. 6 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/1742-5573-6-2 . PMC   2706236 . PMID   19534788.
  13. ↑ Ward, AC (2009). "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 12 (3): 333–43. doi:10.1007/s11019-009-9182-2. PMID   19219564. S2CID   7284783.
  14. ↑ Etzel, Ruth A. (2003). "Stachybotrys". Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 15 (1): 103–106. doi:10.1097/00008480-200302000-00017. ISSN   1040-8703. PMID   12544280.
  15. ↑ Grant WB (2009). "How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill's criteria for causality". Dermatoendocrinology. 1 (1): 17–24. doi:10.4161/derm.1.1.7388. PMC   2715209 . PMID   20046584.
  16. ↑ Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Alcaraz JE, Kane CI, Macera CA, Parsons JE, Wingard DL, Garland CF (2012). "Does the evidence for an inverse relationship between serum vitamin D status and breast cancer risk satisfy the Hill criteria?". Dermatoendocrinology. 4 (2): 152–57. doi:10.4161/derm.20449. PMC   3427194 . PMID   22928071.
  17. ↑ Aghajafari F, Nagulesapillai T, Ronksley PE, Tough SC, O'Beirne M, Rabi DM (2013). "Association between maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies". BMJ . 346 (Mar 26): f1169. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1169 . PMID   23533188.
  18. ↑ Ronksley PE, Brien SE, Turner BJ, Mukamal KJ, Ghali WA (2011). "Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis". BMJ . 342 (Feb 22): d671. doi:10.1136/bmj.d671. PMC   3043109 . PMID   21343207.
  19. ↑ Grau AJ, Urbanek C, Palm F (2010). "Common infections and the risk of stroke". Nat Rev Neurol. 6 (12): 681–94. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.163. PMID   21060340. S2CID   29975502.
  20. ↑ de Vries J, Antoine JM, Burzykowski T, Chiodini A, Gibney M, Kuhnle G, Méheust A, Pijls L, Rowland I (2013). "Markers for nutrition studies: review of criteria for the evaluation of markers". Eur J Nutr . 52 (7): 1685–99. doi:10.1007/s00394-013-0553-3. PMID   23955424. S2CID   9356545.
  21. ↑ Miller, Victoria; Micha, Renata; Choi, Erin; Karageorgou, Dimitra; Webb, Patrick; Mozaffarian, Dariush (2022-02-01). "Evaluation of the Quality of Evidence of the Association of Foods and Nutrients With Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes: A Systematic Review". JAMA Network Open. 5 (2): e2146705. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46705. ISSN   2574-3805. PMC   8814912 . PMID   35113165.
  22. ↑ Hu FB (2013). "Resolved: there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases". Obes Rev . 14 (8): 606–19. doi:10.1111/obr.12040. PMC   5325726 . PMID   23763695.
  23. ↑ Cresswel, James E; Desneux, Nicolas; VanEngelsdorp, Dennis (24 January 2012). "Dietary traces of neonicotinoid pesticides as a cause of population declines in honey bees: an evaluation by Hill's epidemiological criteria". Pest Management Science. 68 (6): 819–827. doi:10.1002/ps.3290. PMID   22488890.
  24. ↑ Poots, Alan J; Reed, Julie E; Woodcock, Thomas; Bell, Derek; Goldmann, Don (2 August 2017). "How to attribute causality in quality improvement: lessons from epidemiology". BMJ Quality & Safety. 26 (11): 933–937. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006756. hdl: 10044/1/49089 . PMID   28768711. S2CID   2782038.
  25. ↑ What the Continuous Update Conclusions Mean American Institute for Cancer Research, n.d., retrieved 13 June 2017
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.