S Schwartz1, E Susser. 1. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. sbs5@columbia.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing cases with controls to uncover the causes of psychiatric disorders are common in biological research. The validity of these studies depends upon adherence to the methodological principles underlying the case-control design. However, these principles are often violated. One common practice that violates these principles is the use of well controls. In this paper we describe the bias that it can cause and discuss why the use of well controls leads to invalidity in case-control studies. METHOD: Using hypothetical numerical examples we illustrate the consequences of using well controls. RESULTS: The results illustrate that the use of well controls can cause substantial bias. In no instance does the use of well controls improve validity. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of well controls is an unhealthy practice in psychiatric research.
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing cases with controls to uncover the causes of psychiatric disorders are common in biological research. The validity of these studies depends upon adherence to the methodological principles underlying the case-control design. However, these principles are often violated. One common practice that violates these principles is the use of well controls. In this paper we describe the bias that it can cause and discuss why the use of well controls leads to invalidity in case-control studies. METHOD: Using hypothetical numerical examples we illustrate the consequences of using well controls. RESULTS: The results illustrate that the use of well controls can cause substantial bias. In no instance does the use of well controls improve validity. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of well controls is an unhealthy practice in psychiatric research.
Authors: S M Meier; E Agerbo; R Maier; C B Pedersen; M Lang; J Grove; M V Hollegaard; D Demontis; B B Trabjerg; C Hjorthøj; S Ripke; F Degenhardt; M M Nöthen; D Rujescu; W Maier; T Werge; O Mors; D M Hougaard; A D Børglum; N R Wray; M Rietschel; M Nordentoft; P B Mortensen; M Mattheisen Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Dag Alnæs; Tobias Kaufmann; Dennis van der Meer; Aldo Córdova-Palomera; Jaroslav Rokicki; Torgeir Moberget; Francesco Bettella; Ingrid Agartz; Deanna M Barch; Alessandro Bertolino; Christine L Brandt; Simon Cervenka; Srdjan Djurovic; Nhat Trung Doan; Sarah Eisenacher; Helena Fatouros-Bergman; Lena Flyckt; Annabella Di Giorgio; Beathe Haatveit; Erik G Jönsson; Peter Kirsch; Martina J Lund; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Giulio Pergola; Emanuel Schwarz; Olav B Smeland; Tiziana Quarto; Mathias Zink; Ole A Andreassen; Lars T Westlye Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Ryan L Muetzel; Laura M E Blanken; Sandra Thijssen; Aad van der Lugt; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Frank C Verhulst; Henning Tiemeier; Tonya White Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Lindsay D Evans; Chrystyna Kouros; Sarah A Frankel; Elizabeth McCauley; Guy S Diamond; Kelly A Schloredt; Judy Garber Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2015-02