Z-scores and the birthweight paradox.
Investigators have long puzzled over the observation that low-birthweight babies of smokers tend to fare better than low-birthweight babies of non-smokers. Similar observations have been made with regard to factors other than smoking status, including socio-economic status, race and parity. Use of standardised birthweights, or birthweight z-scores, has been proposed as an approach to resolve the crossing of the curves that is the hallmark of the so-called birthweight paradox. In this paper, we utilise directed acyclic graphs, analytical proofs and an extensive simulation study to consider the use of z-scores of birthweight and their effect on statistical analysis. We illustrate the causal questions implied by inclusion of birthweight in statistical models, and illustrate the utility of models that include birthweight or z-scores to address those questions. Both analytically and through a simulation study we show that neither birthweight nor z-score adjustment may be used for effect decomposition. The z-score approach yields an unbiased estimate of the total effect, even when collider-stratification would adversely impact estimates from birthweight-adjusted models; however, the total effect could have been estimated more directly with an unadjusted model. The use of z-scores does not add additional information beyond the use of unadjusted models. Thus, the ability of z-scores to successfully resolve the paradoxical crossing of mortality curves is due to an alteration in the causal parameter being estimated (total effect), rather than adjustment for confounding or effect decomposition or other factors.
Schisterman
Enrique F
EF
Epidemiology Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. schistee@mail.nih.gov
Whitcomb
Brian W
BW
Mumford
Sunni L
SL
Platt
Robert W
RW
D001724:Birth Weight; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007226:Infant Mortality; D007230:Infant, Low Birth Weight; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008297:Male; D008425:Maternal Behavior; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012307:Risk Factors; D012907:Smoking / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000453:epidemiology; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Feb;123(2):203-8
3946370
Stat Med. 2005 Jun 15;24(11):1683-702
15742358
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Mar;168(3 Pt 1):937-41
8456906
Epidemiology. 1999 Jan;10(1):37-48
9888278
Epidemiology. 2004 Sep;15(5):615-25
15308962
Am J Epidemiol. 1983 Dec;118(6):857-64
6650487
Epidemiology. 2005 Sep;16(5):710
16135954
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Jan 15;155(2):176-84
11790682
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;17(2):114-6
12675775
Int J Epidemiol. 2003 Aug;32(4):632-3
12913041
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;17(2):119-24
12675777
Int J Epidemiol. 1983 Sep;12(3):319-25
6685112
Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004 Oct 08;1(1):4
15507130
Am J Epidemiol. 1993 May 15;137(10):1098-104
8317439
Int J Epidemiol. 1983 Sep;12(3):314-8
6685111
Epidemiology. 2009 Jul;20(4):488-95
19525685
Int J Epidemiol. 1986 Sep;15(3):413-9
3771081
Bull World Health Organ. 1987;65(5):663-737
3322602
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2007 May 2;55(14):1-32
17569269
Mon Vital Stat Rep. 1998 Feb 26;46(6 Suppl 2):1-22
9524421
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):163-5
11914314
Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23(3):163-6
18224448
Epidemiology. 1991 Sep;2(5):387-92
1742392
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Dec 1;164(11):1115-20
16931543
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Aug 15;164(4):303-11
16847040
Int J Epidemiol. 1986 Jun;15(2):188-96
3721681
Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55
1576220
Epidemiology. 2006 May;17(3):276-84
16617276
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 1;160(3):213-4; discussion 215-6
15257992
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Feb 15;153(4):332-7
11207150
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;30(6):1233-41
11821313
Epidemiology. 1998 Jan;9(1):61-7
9430270
Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(4):635-41
18072312
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Dec 1;164(11):1121-3; discussion 1124-5
16931545