Literature DB >> 30143948

Individually-matched etiologic studies: classical estimators made new again.

James A Hanley1.   

Abstract

With greater access to regression-based methods for confounder control, the etiologic study with individual matching, analyzed by classical (calculator) methods, lost favor in recent decades. This design was costly, and the data sometimes mis-analyzed. Now, with Big Data, individual matching becomes an economical option. To many, however, conditional logistic regression, commonly used to estimate the incidence density ratio parameter, is somewhat of a black box whose output is not easily checked. An epidemiologist-statistician pair recently proposed a new estimator that is easily applied to data from individually-matched series with a 2:1 ratio (and no other confounding variables) using just a hand calculator or spreadsheet. Surprisingly-or possibly not-they overlooked classical estimators developed in earlier decades. This prompts me to re-introduce some of these, to highlight their considerable flexibility and ease of use, and to update them. Nowadays, for any matching ratio (M:1), the Maximum Likelihood result can be easily computed from data gathered under the matched design in two different ways, each using just the summary data. One is via any binomial regression program that allows offsets, applied to just M 'rows' of data. The other is by hand! The aim of this note is not to save on computation; instead, it is to make connections between classical and regression-based methods, to promote terminology that reflects the concepts and structure of the etiologic study, and to focus attention on what parameter is being estimated.

Keywords:  Breslow and Day; Clayton; Mantel and Haenszel; Miettinen; Nelder and Wedderburn; Woolf

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30143948     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-018-0434-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  19 in total

1.  Are statistical contributions to medicine undervalued?

Authors:  Norman E Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  On estimating the relation between blood group and disease.

Authors:  B WOOLF
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  1955-06       Impact factor: 1.670

3.  A conversation with Olli Miettinen. Interview by James A. Hanley.

Authors:  Olli Miettinen
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies.

Authors:  O Miettinen
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1976-02       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  A simple method for analyzing matched designs with double controls: McNemar's test can be extended.

Authors:  Donald A Redelmeier; Robert J Tibshirani
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  A general estimator for the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio.

Authors:  J Robins; S Greenland; N E Breslow
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 7.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1987

8.  Bias in matched case-control studies: DAGs are not enough.

Authors:  Neil Pearce
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  A Multicenter Observational Study of Incretin-based Drugs and Heart Failure.

Authors:  Kristian B Filion; Laurent Azoulay; Robert W Platt; Matthew Dahl; Colin R Dormuth; Kristin K Clemens; Nianping Hu; J Michael Paterson; Laura Targownik; Tanvir C Turin; Jacob A Udell; Pierre Ernst
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Case-control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Nicholas Patrick Jewell; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 12.434

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.