Literature DB >> 2293747

Matching and efficiency in cohort studies.

S Greenland1, H Morgenstern.   

Abstract

Contrary to the impression given in some textbooks, matching can reduce the efficiency of a cohort study, even when it produces no sample-size reduction and even if the matching variable is a confounder. The authors illustrate this along with some additional points regarding cohort matching. First, the impact of matching on efficiency can be in opposite directions for different measures of effect; as a consequence, criteria for deciding whether to match must depend on whether one wishes to estimate relative or absolute effects. Second, the commonly drawn analogy between blocking in randomized trials and matching in cohort studies is misleading when one considers the impact of matching on covariate distributions. Third, the conditions for efficiency overmatching in a cohort study are different from the conditions in a case-control study. It appears that, under an additive model, matching will usually increase the efficiency of both risk-difference and risk-ratio estimation, and the power of the Mantel-Haenszel test. Under a multiplicative model, the impact of matching is not as consistently beneficial. The authors present some approximate criteria which allow one to use a priori information to predict whether cohort matching is likely to improve efficiency.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2293747     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115469

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  16 in total

1.  A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space.

Authors:  Charles C Branas; Rose A Cheney; John M MacDonald; Vicky W Tam; Tara D Jackson; Thomas R Ten Have
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Causal inference methods to study nonrandomized, preexisting development interventions.

Authors:  Benjamin F Arnold; Ranjiv S Khush; Padmavathi Ramaswamy; Alicia G London; Paramasivan Rajkumar; Prabhakar Ramaprabha; Natesan Durairaj; Alan E Hubbard; Kalpana Balakrishnan; John M Colford
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding.

Authors:  Sharon-Lise T Normand; Kathy Sykora; Ping Li; Muhammad Mamdani; Paula A Rochon; Geoffrey M Anderson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-30

4.  Epidemiologic analysis of racial/ethnic disparities: a rejoinder to Frank and Exner.

Authors:  Jay S Kaufman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Epidemiologic analysis of racial/ethnic disparities: some fundamental issues and a cautionary example.

Authors:  Jay S Kaufman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Matched designs and causal diagrams.

Authors:  Mohammad A Mansournia; Miguel A Hernán; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Theory and methodology: essential tools that can become dangerous belief systems.

Authors:  Sander Greenland; Nicholas Patrick Jewell; Mohammad Ali Mansournia
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  Observational Studies: Matching or Regression?

Authors:  Ruta Brazauskas; Brent R Logan
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Short and long term mortality associated with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections: registry based study.

Authors:  Morten Helms; Pernille Vastrup; Peter Gerner-Smidt; Kåre Mølbak
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-15

10.  Safety assessment of an anti-obesity drug (sibutramine): a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jerzy E Tyczynski; Denise M Oleske; David Klingman; Cheryl P Ferrufino; Won Chan Lee
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 5.606

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.