PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9430272

External comparisons from nested case-control designs.

Abstract

The nested case-control design, used to sample within cohorts, is usually employed for internal comparisons. We propose to use this design for external comparisons. We present two probability-weighted estimators of the expected number of cases under a given exposure, based on external rates, for two versions of the nested case-control design. These estimators are used, along with their variance estimators, to form confidence intervals for standardized mortality ratios. The estimators are practically unbiased, whereas the naive estimator that treats the nested case-control sample as a random sample of the cohort is clearly biased. An estimator from the alternative Cox model-based approach is found to be substantially biased when applied in this context. Comparing the proposed estimators for nested case-control designs to a corresponding estimator for the case-cohort design, we found that the correlation between follow-up time and exposure time (that is, the amount of time under the exposure effect) has an impact on which type of design is more efficient for external comparisons. A small correlation favors the case-cohort design and a large correlation the nested case-control design. We examine empirical properties of these estimators through computer simulations, using a cohort study of the incidence of second cancer in 2,189 patients with Hodgkin's disease.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Suissa, M D Edwardes, J F Boivin. 1998. External comparisons from nested case-control designs.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9430272/

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

Influence of sampling on estimates of clustering and recent transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis derived from DNA fingerprinting techniques.

The availability of DNA fingerprinting techniques for Mycobacterium tuberculosis has led to attempts to estimate the extent of recent transmission in populations, using the assumption that groups of tuberculosis patients with identical isolates ("clusters") are likely to reflect recently acquired infections. It is never possible to include all cases of tuberculosis in a given population in a study, and the proportion of isolates found to be clustered will depend on the completeness of the sampling. Using stochastic simulation models based on real and hypothetical populations, the authors demonstrate the influence of incomplete sampling on the estimates of clustering obtained. The results show that as the sampling fraction increases, the proportion of isolates identified as clustered also increases and the variance of the estimated proportion clustered decreases. Cluster size is also important: the underestimation of clustering for any given sampling fraction is greater, and the variability in the results obtained is larger, for populations with small clusters than for those with the same number of individuals arranged in large clusters. A considerable amount of caution should be used in interpreting the results of studies on clustering of M. tuberculosis isolates, particularly when sampling fractions are small.

Bias