Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo methods for estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the population-attributable fraction (PAF). The objectives were to identify the optimal method and to determine the influence of primary parameters on PAF calculations. Methods: A dataset was simulated using hypothetical values for primary parameters (population, relative risk [RR], prevalence, and variance of the beta estimator ) involved in PAF calculations. Three methods (Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo) were used to estimate the 95% CIs of the PAFs. Perturbation analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PAF to changes in these parameters. An R Shiny application, the “GDM-PAF CI Explorer,” was developed to facilitate the analysis and visualization of these computations. Results: No significant differences were observed among the 3 methods when both the RR and p-value were low. The Delta method performed well under conditions of low prevalence or minimal RR, while Greenland’s method was effective in scenarios with high prevalence. Meanwhile, the Monte Carlo method calculated 95% CIs of PAFs that were stable overall, though it required intensive computational resources. In a novel approach that utilized perturbation for sensitivity analysis, was identified as the most influential parameter in the estimation of CIs. Conclusions This study emphasizes the necessity of a careful approach for comparing 95% CI estimation methods for PAFs and selecting the method that best suits the context. It provides practical guidelines to researchers to increase the reliability and accuracy of epidemiological studies.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo methods for estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the population-attributable fraction (PAF). The objectives were to identify the optimal method and to determine the influence of primary parameters on PAF calculations. Methods: A dataset was simulated using hypothetical values for primary parameters (population, relative risk [RR], prevalence, and variance of the beta estimator ) involved in PAF calculations. Three methods (Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo) were used to estimate the 95% CIs of the PAFs. Perturbation analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PAF to changes in these parameters. An R Shiny application, the “GDM-PAF CI Explorer,” was developed to facilitate the analysis and visualization of these computations. Results: No significant differences were observed among the 3 methods when both the RR and p-value were low. The Delta method performed well under conditions of low prevalence or minimal RR, while Greenland’s method was effective in scenarios with high prevalence. Meanwhile, the Monte Carlo method calculated 95% CIs of PAFs that were stable overall, though it required intensive computational resources. In a novel approach that utilized perturbation for sensitivity analysis, was identified as the most influential parameter in the estimation of CIs. Conclusions This study emphasizes the necessity of a careful approach for comparing 95% CI estimation methods for PAFs and selecting the method that best suits the context. It provides practical guidelines to researchers to increase the reliability and accuracy of epidemiological studies.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo methods for estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the population-attributable fraction (PAF). The objectives were to identify the optimal method and to determine the influence of primary parameters on PAF calculations. Methods: A dataset was simulated using hypothetical values for primary parameters (population, relative risk [RR], prevalence, and variance of the beta estimator ) involved in PAF calculations. Three methods (Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo) were used to estimate the 95% CIs of the PAFs. Perturbation analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PAF to changes in these parameters. An R Shiny application, the “GDM-PAF CI Explorer,” was developed to facilitate the analysis and visualization of these computations. Results: No significant differences were observed among the 3 methods when both the RR and p-value were low. The Delta method performed well under conditions of low prevalence or minimal RR, while Greenland’s method was effective in scenarios with high prevalence. Meanwhile, the Monte Carlo method calculated 95% CIs of PAFs that were stable overall, though it required intensive computational resources. In a novel approach that utilized perturbation for sensitivity analysis, was identified as the most influential parameter in the estimation of CIs. Conclusions This study emphasizes the necessity of a careful approach for comparing 95% CI estimation methods for PAFs and selecting the method that best suits the context. It provides practical guidelines to researchers to increase the reliability and accuracy of epidemiological studies.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo methods for estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the population-attributable fraction (PAF). The objectives were to identify the optimal method and to determine the influence of primary parameters on PAF calculations. Methods: A dataset was simulated using hypothetical values for primary parameters (population, relative risk [RR], prevalence, and variance of the beta estimator ) involved in PAF calculations. Three methods (Delta, Greenland, and Monte Carlo) were used to estimate the 95% CIs of the PAFs. Perturbation analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PAF to changes in these parameters. An R Shiny application, the “GDM-PAF CI Explorer,” was developed to facilitate the analysis and visualization of these computations. Results: No significant differences were observed among the 3 methods when both the RR and p-value were low. The Delta method performed well under conditions of low prevalence or minimal RR, while Greenland’s method was effective in scenarios with high prevalence. Meanwhile, the Monte Carlo method calculated 95% CIs of PAFs that were stable overall, though it required intensive computational resources. In a novel approach that utilized perturbation for sensitivity analysis, was identified as the most influential parameter in the estimation of CIs. Conclusions This study emphasizes the necessity of a careful approach for comparing 95% CI estimation methods for PAFs and selecting the method that best suits the context. It provides practical guidelines to researchers to increase the reliability and accuracy of epidemiological studies.

Objectives: This study aimed to identify the current patterns of cancer incidence and estimate the projected cancer incidence and mortality between 2020 and 2035 in Korea. Methods: Data on cancer incidence cases were extracted from the Korean Statistical Information Service from 2000 to 2017, and data on cancer-related deaths were extracted from the National Cancer Center from 2000 to 2018. Cancer cases and deaths were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition. For the current patterns of cancer incidence, age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) and age-standardized mortality rates were investigated using the 2000 mid-year estimated population aged over 20 years and older. A joinpoint regression model was used to determine the 2020 to 2035 trends in cancer. Results: Overall, cancer cases were predicted to increase from 265 299 in 2020 to 474 085 in 2035 (growth rate: 1.8%). The greatest increase in the ASIR was projected for prostate cancer among male (7.84 vs. 189.53 per 100 000 people) and breast cancer among female (34.17 vs. 238.45 per 100 000 people) from 2000 to 2035. Overall cancer deaths were projected to increase from 81 717 in 2020 to 95 845 in 2035 (average annual growth rate: 1.2%). Although most cancer mortality rates were projected to decrease, those of breast, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer among female were projected to increase until 2035. Conclusions These up-to-date projections of cancer incidence and mortality in the Korean population may be a significant resource for implementing cancer-related regulations or developing cancer treatments.