Literature DB >> 31209487

Bias control in the analysis of case-control studies with incidence density sampling.

Yin Bun Cheung1,2,3, Xiangmei Ma2, K F Lam4, Jialiang Li5, Paul Milligan6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous simulation studies of the case-control study design using incidence density sampling, which required individual matching for time, showed biased estimates of association from conditional logistic regression (CLR) analysis; however, the reason for this is unknown. Separately, in the analysis of case-control studies using the exclusive sampling design, it has been shown that unconditional logistic regression (ULR) with adjustment for an individually matched binary factor can give unbiased estimates. The validity of this analytic approach in incidence density sampling needs evaluation.
METHODS: In extensive simulations using incidence density sampling, we evaluated various analytic methods: CLR with and without a bias-reduction method, ULR with adjustment for time in quintiles (and residual time within quintiles) and ULR with adjustment for matched sets and bias reduction. We re-analysed a case-control study of Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine using these methods.
RESULTS: We found that the bias in the CLR analysis from previous studies was due to sparse data bias. It can be controlled by the bias-reduction method for CLR or by increasing the number of cases and/or controls. ULR with adjustment for time in quintiles usually gave results highly comparable to CLR, despite breaking the matches. Further adjustment for residual time trends was needed in the case of time-varying effects. ULR with adjustment for matched sets tended to perform poorly despite bias reduction.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies using incidence density sampling may be analysed by either ULR with adjustment for time or CLR, possibly with bias reduction.
© The Author(s) 2019; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias reduction; incidence density sampling; logistic regression; matched case–control study

Year:  2019        PMID: 31209487     DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  4 in total

1.  Matched Versus Unmatched Analysis of Matched Case-Control Studies.

Authors:  Fei Wan; Graham A Colditz; Siobhan Sutcliffe
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Decreased Susceptibility of Marginal Odds Ratios to Finite-sample Bias.

Authors:  Rachael K Ross; Stephen R Cole; David B Richardson
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.860

3.  Association Between Alzheimer Disease and Cancer With Evaluation of Study Biases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Monica Ospina-Romero; M Maria Glymour; Eleanor Hayes-Larson; Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; Rebecca E Graff; Willa D Brenowitz; Sarah F Ackley; John S Witte; Lindsay C Kobayashi
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-11-02

4.  Random control selection for conducting high-throughput adverse drug events screening using large-scale longitudinal health data.

Authors:  Chien-Wei Chiang; Penyue Zhang; Macarius Donneyong; You Chen; Yu Su; Lang Li
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2021-08-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.