Marital status and risk of cardiovascular disease – a multi-analyst study in epidemiology

Bernd Kowall, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt, Jale Basten, Heiko Becher, Tilman Brand, Julia Braun, Swaantje Casjens, Heiner Claessen, Robin Denz, Hans H. Diebner, Sophie Diexer, Nora Eisemann, Eva Furrer, Wolfgang Galetzka, Carolin Girschik, André Karch, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Manuela Peters, Susanne Rospleszcz, Viktoria RückerAndreas Stang, Susanne Stolpe, Katherine J. Taylor, Nina Timmesfeld, Marianne Tokic, Hajo Zeeb, Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, Thomas Behrens, Till Ittermann, Nicole Rübsamen

Abstract

In multi-analyst studies, several analysts use the same data to independently investigate identical research questions. Multi-analyst studies have been conducted mainly in psychology, social sciences, and neuroscience, but rarely in epidemiology. Sixteen analyst groups (24 researchers) with backgrounds mainly in statistics, mathematics, and epidemiology were asked to independently perform an analysis on the influence of marital status (never married versus cohabiting married) on cardiovascular outcomes. They were asked to use data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), a panel study of 140,000 persons aged 50 years and above from 28 European countries and Israel, and to provide an effect estimate, a comment on their results, and the full syntax of their analyses. In additional analyses beyond the multi-analyst approach, one group selected an exemplary regression model and varied definitions of exposure and outcome and the confounder adjustment set. Each analysis was unique. The size of the 16 datasets used for the analyses ranged from 15,592 to 336,914 observations. The effect estimates (odds ratios, hazard ratios, or relative risks) ranged from 0.72 to 1.02 (reference: cohabiting married) in strictly or partly cross-sectional analyses and from 0.95 to 1.31 in strictly longitudinal analyses. The choice of regression models, adjustment sets for confounding, and variations in the precise definition of exposure and outcome, all had only small effects on the effect estimates. The range of results was mainly due to differences from cross-sectional versus longitudinal analyses rather than to single analytical decisions each of which had less influence.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Journal of Epidemiology
Volume40
Issue number5
Pages (from-to)497-509
Number of pages13
ISSN1573-7284
Publication statusPublished - 05.2025

Funding

FundersFunder number
European Commission, DG RTD
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Seventh Framework Programme283646, 261982, 211909, 227822
Volkswagen Foundation9A_304
Sixth Framework ProgrammeCIT4-CT-2006-028812, RII-CT-2006-062193, CIT5-CT-2005-028857
Fifth Framework ProgrammeQLK6-CT-2001-00360
Horizon 2020VS 2020/0313, VS 2015/0195, VS 2019/0332, VS 2018/0285, 654221, 676536, 870628, VS 2016/0135, 823782
National Institute on AgingP01_AG005842, Y1-AG-4553-01, RAG052527A, P30_AG12815, HHSN271201300071C, OGHA_04–064, R21_AG025169, IAG_BSR06-11, U01_AG09740-13S2, P01_AG08291

    Research Areas and Centers

    • Research Area: Center for Population Medicine and Public Health (ZBV)

    Cite this