PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11764250

Matched case-control data analysis with selection bias.

Abstract

Case-control studies offer a rapid and efficient way to evaluate hypotheses. On the other hand, proper selection of the controls is challenging, and the potential for selection bias is a major weakness. Valid inferences about parameters of interest cannot be drawn if selection bias exists. Furthermore, the selection bias is difficult to evaluate. Even in situations where selection bias can be estimated, few methods are available. In the matched case-control Northern Manhattan Stroke Study (NOMASS), stroke-free controls are sampled in two stages. First, a telephone survey ascertains demographic and exposure status from a large random sample. Then, in an in-person interview, detailed information is collected for the selected controls to be used in a matched case-control study. The telephone survey data provides information about the selection probability and the potential selection bias. In this article, we propose bias-corrected estimators in a case-control study using a joint estimating equation approach. The proposed bias-corrected estimate and its standard error can be easily obtained by standard statistical software.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I F Lin, M C Paik. 2001. Matched case-control data analysis with selection bias.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.01106.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

A methodological bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales.

There is presently a conflict between fossil- and molecular-based evolutionary time scales. Molecular approaches for dating the branches of the tree of life frequently lead to substantially deeper times of divergence than those inferred by paleontologists. The discrepancy between molecular and fossil estimates persists despite the booming growth of sequence data sets, which increasingly feeds the interpretation that molecular estimates are older than stratigraphic dates because of deficiencies in the fossil record. Here we show that molecular time estimates suffer from a methodological handicap, namely that they are asymmetrically bounded random variables, constrained by a nonelastic boundary at the lower end, but not at the higher end of the distribution. This introduces a bias toward an overestimation of time since divergence, which becomes greater as the length of the molecular sequence and the rate of evolution decrease.

Bias↗