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.

Biased Selection of Controls for Case-Control Analyses of Cohort Studies

Jay H. Lubin and Mitchell H. Gail
Biometrics
Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 63-75
DOI: 10.2307/2530744
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2530744
Page Count: 13
  • 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.
Biased Selection of Controls for Case-Control Analyses of Cohort Studies
Preview not available

Abstract

It is known that unbiased estimates of the relative risk in a cohort study may be obtained by a matched case-control analysis that compares each case with a random sample of controls obtained from those at risk at the time of case incidence. Through inadvertence, or for practical or scientific reasons, a biased referent group may be selected instead. Three kinds of biasing restrictions on controls are commonly imposed: (i) the requirement that controls remain completely disease-free for a fixed time interval, (ii) the exclusion of all cases incident during observation as controls, and (iii) the exclusion, from the referent group, of subjects who develop other diseases, which may be related to the exposure of interest. The bias in estimation of the relative risk associated with each of these restrictions is evaluated under the proportional-hazards model. For several examples of cancer mortality data, the bias from (iii) appears quite small, whereas the bias from (i) can be appreciable and is mostly attributable to the bias from case exclusion (ii). The effect of random variation in the time of onset of exposure is to reduce these biases.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
63
    63
  • Thumbnail: Page 
64
    64
  • Thumbnail: Page 
65
    65
  • Thumbnail: Page 
66
    66
  • Thumbnail: Page 
67
    67
  • Thumbnail: Page 
68
    68
  • Thumbnail: Page 
69
    69
  • Thumbnail: Page 
70
    70
  • Thumbnail: Page 
71
    71
  • Thumbnail: Page 
72
    72
  • Thumbnail: Page 
73
    73
  • Thumbnail: Page 
74
    74
  • Thumbnail: Page 
75
    75