Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Matching in Epidemiologic Studies: Validity and Efficiency Considerations

Lawrence L. Kupper, John M. Karon, David G. Kleinbaum, Hal Morgenstern and Donald K. Lewis
Biometrics
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 271-291
DOI: 10.2307/2530417
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2530417
Page Count: 21
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($14.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Matching in Epidemiologic Studies: Validity and Efficiency Considerations
Preview not available

Abstract

Validity and efficiency issues are considered with regard to the use of matching and random sampling as alternative methods of subject selection in follow-up and case-control studies. We discuss the simple situation involving dichotomous disease and exposure variables and a single dichotomous matching factor, and we consider the influence on efficiency of a possible loss of subjects due to matching constraints. The decision to match or not should be motivated by efficiency considerations. An efficiency criterion based on a comparison of confidence intervals under matching and random sampling for the effect measure of interest (the risk ratio and risk difference in follow-up studies, and the odds ratio in case-control studies) leads to the following conclusions when the sampling method does not influence the size of the comparison group. In follow-up studies, matching on a confounder is expected to lead to a gain in efficiency over random sampling, while matching on a nonconfounder is not expected to result in a loss of efficiency. In case-control studies, the same conclusions hold, except that matching is not as advantageous as in follow-up studies and can lead to a loss of efficiency in some situations (usually of little practical importance). When matching reduces the size of the comparison group, there is likely to be a meaningful gain in efficiency due to random sampling only when the matched comparison group is at most 40-50% the size of the randomly-sampled comparison group in a follow-up study, and at most 50-65% the size in a case-control study.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
271
    271
  • Thumbnail: Page 
272
    272
  • Thumbnail: Page 
273
    273
  • Thumbnail: Page 
274
    274
  • Thumbnail: Page 
275
    275
  • Thumbnail: Page 
276
    276
  • Thumbnail: Page 
277
    277
  • Thumbnail: Page 
278
    278
  • Thumbnail: Page 
279
    279
  • Thumbnail: Page 
280
    280
  • Thumbnail: Page 
281
    281
  • Thumbnail: Page 
282
    282
  • Thumbnail: Page 
283
    283
  • Thumbnail: Page 
284
    284
  • Thumbnail: Page 
285
    285
  • Thumbnail: Page 
286
    286
  • Thumbnail: Page 
287
    287
  • Thumbnail: Page 
288
    288
  • Thumbnail: Page 
289
    289
  • Thumbnail: Page 
290
    290
  • Thumbnail: Page 
291
    291