Modern Sources of Controls in Case-Control Studies.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Hailey R Banack, Matthew P Fox, Robert W Platt, Michael D Garber, Xiaojuan Li, Jonathan Schildcrout, Ellicott C Matthay
{"title":"Modern Sources of Controls in Case-Control Studies.","authors":"Hailey R Banack, Matthew P Fox, Robert W Platt, Michael D Garber, Xiaojuan Li, Jonathan Schildcrout, Ellicott C Matthay","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1992, Wacholder and colleagues developed a theoretical framework for case-control studies to minimize bias in control selection. They described three comparability principles (study base, deconfounding, and comparable accuracy) to reduce the potential for selection bias, confounding, and information bias in case-control studies. Wacholder et al. explained how these principles apply to traditional sources of controls for case-control studies, including population controls, hospital controls, controls from a medical practice, friend or relative controls, and deceased controls. The goal of the current manuscript is to extend this seminal work on case-control studies by providing a modern perspective on sources of controls. Today, there are many more potential sources of controls for case-control studies than there were in the 1990s. This is due to technological advances in computing power, internet access, and availability of 'big data' resources. These advances have vastly expanded the quantity and diversity of data available for case-control studies. In this manuscript, we discuss control selection from electronic health records, health insurance claims databases, publicly available online data sources, and social media-based data. We focus on practical considerations for unbiased control selection, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of each modern source of controls for case-control studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae437","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1992, Wacholder and colleagues developed a theoretical framework for case-control studies to minimize bias in control selection. They described three comparability principles (study base, deconfounding, and comparable accuracy) to reduce the potential for selection bias, confounding, and information bias in case-control studies. Wacholder et al. explained how these principles apply to traditional sources of controls for case-control studies, including population controls, hospital controls, controls from a medical practice, friend or relative controls, and deceased controls. The goal of the current manuscript is to extend this seminal work on case-control studies by providing a modern perspective on sources of controls. Today, there are many more potential sources of controls for case-control studies than there were in the 1990s. This is due to technological advances in computing power, internet access, and availability of 'big data' resources. These advances have vastly expanded the quantity and diversity of data available for case-control studies. In this manuscript, we discuss control selection from electronic health records, health insurance claims databases, publicly available online data sources, and social media-based data. We focus on practical considerations for unbiased control selection, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of each modern source of controls for case-control studies.

病例对照研究中对照的现代来源。
1992 年,Wacholder 及其同事为病例对照研究制定了一个理论框架,以尽量减少对照选择的偏差。他们描述了三项可比性原则(研究基础、排除混杂和可比准确性),以减少病例对照研究中可能出现的选择偏倚、混杂和信息偏倚。Wacholder 等人解释了这些原则如何适用于病例对照研究的传统对照来源,包括人群对照、医院对照、医疗机构对照、亲友对照和死亡对照。本手稿的目的是扩展病例对照研究的这一开创性工作,提供有关对照来源的现代视角。与 20 世纪 90 年代相比,如今病例对照研究的潜在对照者来源更多了。这归功于计算能力、互联网访问和 "大数据 "资源可用性方面的技术进步。这些进步大大增加了病例对照研究可用数据的数量和多样性。在本手稿中,我们将讨论从电子健康记录、医疗保险理赔数据库、公开在线数据源和基于社交媒体的数据中选择对照。我们将重点放在无偏见对照选择的实际考虑因素上,强调病例对照研究中每种现代对照来源的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信