Literature DB >> 22490319

Selection bias in population-based cancer case-control studies due to incomplete sampling frame coverage.

Matthew C Walsh1, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Ronald E Gangnon, F Javier Nieto, Polly A Newcomb, Mari Palta.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of individuals are choosing to opt out of population-based sampling frames due to privacy concerns. This is especially a problem in the selection of controls for case-control studies, as the cases often arise from relatively complete population-based registries, whereas control selection requires a sampling frame. If opt out is also related to risk factors, bias can arise.
METHODS: We linked breast cancer cases who reported having a valid driver's license from the 2004-2008 Wisconsin women's health study (N = 2,988) with a master list of licensed drivers from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT). This master list excludes Wisconsin drivers that requested their information not be sold by the state. Multivariate-adjusted selection probability ratios (SPR) were calculated to estimate potential bias when using this driver's license sampling frame to select controls.
RESULTS: A total of 962 cases (32%) had opted out of the WDOT sampling frame. Cases age <40 (SPR = 0.90), income either unreported (SPR = 0.89) or greater than $50,000 (SPR = 0.94), lower parity (SPR = 0.96 per one-child decrease), and hormone use (SPR = 0.93) were significantly less likely to be covered by the WDOT sampling frame (α = 0.05 level).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate the potential for selection bias due to differential opt out between various demographic and behavioral subgroups of controls. As selection bias may differ by exposure and study base, the assessment of potential bias needs to be ongoing. IMPACT: SPRs can be used to predict the direction of bias when cases and controls stem from different sampling frames in population-based case-control studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22490319      PMCID: PMC3645306          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  19 in total

1.  Analysis of selection bias in a case-control study of renal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  M Maclure; S Hankinson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Selection of controls in case-control studies. I. Principles.

Authors:  S Wacholder; J K McLaughlin; D T Silverman; J S Mandel
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Selection of controls in case-control studies. III. Design options.

Authors:  S Wacholder; D T Silverman; J K McLaughlin; J S Mandel
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Selection of controls in case-control studies. II. Types of controls.

Authors:  S Wacholder; D T Silverman; J K McLaughlin; J S Mandel
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-05-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Hypertension and risk of renal cell carcinoma among white and black Americans.

Authors:  Joanne S Colt; Kendra Schwartz; Barry I Graubard; Faith Davis; Julie Ruterbusch; Ralph DiGaetano; Mark Purdue; Nathaniel Rothman; Sholom Wacholder; Wong-Ho Chow
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Availability of driver's license master lists for use in government-sponsored public health research.

Authors:  Matthew C Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mari Palta
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Bias due to nonresponse in a mail survey of Rhode Island physicians' smoking habits--1968.

Authors:  A M Burgess; J T Tierney
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1970-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Adjusting for nonresponse bias in a health examination survey.

Authors:  M L Rowland; R N Forthofer
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1993 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

9.  The "case-control" study: valid selection of subjects.

Authors:  O S Miettinen
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

10.  The effects of nonresponse in a prospective study of cancer.

Authors:  L K Heilbrun; A Nomura; G N Stemmermann
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  7 in total

1.  Using propensity scores to reduce case-control selection bias.

Authors:  Matthew C Walsh; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Polly A Newcomb; Ronald Gangnon; Mari Palta
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 2.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 3.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.372

4.  Use of empiric methods to inform prostate cancer health disparities: Comparison of neighborhood-wide association study "hits" in black and white men.

Authors:  Shannon M Lynch; Kristen Sorice; Erin K Tagai; Elizabeth A Handorf
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The impact of interleukin-10 (IL-10) gene 4 polymorphisms on peripheral blood IL-10 variation and prostate cancer risk based on published studies.

Authors:  Tingting Men; Cuicui Yu; Dan Wang; Fang Liu; Jingjing Li; Xiaoying Qi; Chunhua Yang; Wenguo Jiang; Xiaodan Wei; Xuri Li; Bin Wang; Jia Mi; Geng Tian
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-11

6.  Recruitment via social media: advantages and potential biases.

Authors:  Catherine Benedict; Alexandria L Hahn; Michael A Diefenbach; Jennifer S Ford
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2019-08-06

7.  Administration of oral fluoroquinolone and the risk of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A nationwide population-based study in Korea.

Authors:  Seung Yong Choi; Hyun-A Lim; Hyeon Woo Yim; Young-Hoon Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.