Literature DB >> 26345580

A Simulation Study of Relative Efficiency and Bias in the Nested Case-Control Study Design.

Stephen Bertke1, Misty Hein1, Mary Schubauer-Berigan1, James Deddens1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The nested case-control study design, in which a fixed number of controls are matched to each case, is often used to analyze exposure-response associations within a cohort. It has become common practice to sample four or five controls per case; however, previous research has shown that in certain instances, significant gains in relative efficiency can be realized when more controls are matched to each case. This study expanded upon this and investigated the effect of (i) the number of cases, (ii) the strength of the exposure-response, and (iii) the skewness of the exposure distribution on the bias and relative efficiency of the conditional likelihood estimator from a nested case-control study.
METHODS: Cohorts were simulated and analyzed using conditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: The relative efficiency decreased and bias away from the null increased, as the true exposure-response parameter increased and the skewness of the exposure distribution of the risk-sets increased. This became more pronounced when the number of cases in the cohort was small.
CONCLUSIONS: Gains in relative efficiency and a reduction in bias can be realized by sampling more than four or five controls per case generally used, especially when there are few cases, a strong exposure-response relation, and a skewed exposure variable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; efficiency; matched case–control studies; nested case–control studies; simulation

Year:  2013        PMID: 26345580      PMCID: PMC4558410          DOI: 10.1515/em-2013-0007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Methods        ISSN: 2161-962X


  11 in total

1.  Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  The impact of exposure categorisation for grouped analyses of cohort data.

Authors:  D B Richardson; D Loomis
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Bias from matching on age at death or censor in nested case-control studies.

Authors:  Misty J Hein; James A Deddens; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Covariance analysis of censored survival data.

Authors:  N Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1974-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Choosing the number of controls in a matched case-control study, some sample size, power and efficiency considerations.

Authors:  J M Taylor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1986 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  How many controls?

Authors:  M Gail; R Williams; D P Byar; C Brown
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1976-11

7.  Estimation of multiple relative risk functions in matched case-control studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day; K T Halvorsen; R L Prentice; C Sabai
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Models for complex contingency tables and polychotomous dosage response curves.

Authors:  N Mantel
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1966-03       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Benzene and leukemia. An epidemiologic risk assessment.

Authors:  R A Rinsky; A B Smith; R Hornung; T G Filloon; R J Young; A H Okun; P J Landrigan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-04-23       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Silicosis among gold miners: exposure--response analyses and risk assessment.

Authors:  K Steenland; D Brown
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  2 in total

1.  Examining temporal effects on cancer risk in the international nuclear workers' study.

Authors:  Robert D Daniels; Stephen J Bertke; David B Richardson; Elisabeth Cardis; Michael Gillies; Jacqueline A O'Hagan; Richard Haylock; Dominique Laurier; Klervi Leuraud; Monika Moissonnier; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Ausrele Kesminiene; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  A study update of mortality in workers at a phosphate fertilizer production facility.

Authors:  James H Yiin; Robert D Daniels; Travis L Kubale; Kevin L Dunn; Leslie T Stayner
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 2.214

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.