Jean Golding1, Kate Northstone, Laura L Miller, George Davey Smith, Marcus Pembrey. 1. School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, MRC Centre for Causal Analyses in Translational Epidemiology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, and Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selecting appropriate controls for studies of genetic variation in case series is important. The two major candidates involve the use of blood donors or a random sample of the population. METHODS: We compare and contrast the two different populations of controls for studies of genetic variation using data from parents enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). In addition we compute different biases using a series of hypothetical assumptions. RESULTS: The study subjects who had been blood donors differed markedly from the general population in social, health-related, anthropometric, and personality-related variables. Using theoretical examples, we show that blood donors are a poor control group for non-genetic studies of diseases related to environmentally, behaviourally, or socially patterned exposures. However, we show that if blood donors are used as controls in genetic studies, these factors are unlikely to make a major difference in detecting true associations with relatively rare disorders (cumulative incidence through life of <10%). Nevertheless, for more common disorders, the reduction in accuracy resulting from the inclusion in any control population of individuals who have or will develop the disease in question can create a greater bias than can socially patterned factors. CONCLUSIONS: Information about the medical history of a control and the parents of the control (as a proxy for whether the control will develop the disease) is more important with regard to the choice of controls than whether the controls are a random population sample or blood donors.
BACKGROUND: Selecting appropriate controls for studies of genetic variation in case series is important. The two major candidates involve the use of blood donors or a random sample of the population. METHODS: We compare and contrast the two different populations of controls for studies of genetic variation using data from parents enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). In addition we compute different biases using a series of hypothetical assumptions. RESULTS: The study subjects who had been blood donors differed markedly from the general population in social, health-related, anthropometric, and personality-related variables. Using theoretical examples, we show that blood donors are a poor control group for non-genetic studies of diseases related to environmentally, behaviourally, or socially patterned exposures. However, we show that if blood donors are used as controls in genetic studies, these factors are unlikely to make a major difference in detecting true associations with relatively rare disorders (cumulative incidence through life of <10%). Nevertheless, for more common disorders, the reduction in accuracy resulting from the inclusion in any control population of individuals who have or will develop the disease in question can create a greater bias than can socially patterned factors. CONCLUSIONS: Information about the medical history of a control and the parents of the control (as a proxy for whether the control will develop the disease) is more important with regard to the choice of controls than whether the controls are a random population sample or blood donors.
Authors: Marietta Charakida; Ann E Donald; Mari Terese; Sam Leary; Julian P Halcox; Andy Ness; George Davey Smith; Jean Golding; Peter Friberg; Nigel J Klein; John E Deanfield Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eric S Calhoun; Renee M McGovern; Carol A Janney; James R Cerhan; Stephen J Iturria; David I Smith; Bobbie S Gostout; David H Persing Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: N M Williams; A Preece; D W Morris; G Spurlock; N J Bray; M Stephens; N Norton; H Williams; M Clement; S Dwyer; C Curran; J Wilkinson; V Moskvina; J L Waddington; M Gill; A P Corvin; S Zammit; G Kirov; M J Owen; M C O'Donovan Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2004-04
Authors: Saeed Rafii; Paul O'Regan; George Xinarianos; Iman Azmy; Tim Stephenson; Malcolm Reed; Mark Meuth; John Thacker; Angela Cox Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Abigail Fraser; Corrie Macdonald-Wallis; Kate Tilling; Andy Boyd; Jean Golding; George Davey Smith; John Henderson; John Macleod; Lynn Molloy; Andy Ness; Susan Ring; Scott M Nelson; Debbie A Lawlor Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Eshan U Patel; Evan M Bloch; Mary K Grabowski; Ruchika Goel; Parvez M Lokhandwala; Patricia A R Brunker; Jodie L White; Beth Shaz; Paul M Ness; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Hassan Kheyre; Samantha Morais; Ana Ferro; Ana Rute Costa; Pedro Norton; Nuno Lunet; Bárbara Peleteiro Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Khadija El Jellas; Dag Hoem; Kristin G Hagen; May Britt Kalvenes; Sura Aziz; Solrun J Steine; Heike Immervoll; Stefan Johansson; Anders Molven Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Sheba K Meymandi; Colin J Forsyth; Jonathan Soverow; Salvador Hernandez; Daniel Sanchez; Susan P Montgomery; Mahmoud Traina Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 9.079