An empirical investigation on matching in published case–control studies
Abstract
The methodological discussion about matching when recruiting controls in case-control studies has been controversial for a long time. To delineate the impact of this discussion on the practice of matching we reviewed 266 case-control studies published in nine yearly volumes of three major epidemiological journals within the period 1955-1994. Among studies published until 1980 71.7% of the control groups were recruited by individual matching compared to 46.4% in 1994. This decline is paralleled by an increase in the application of frequency matching (from 5.0% to 26.2%). As the issue of matching is closely connected with methodological questions of the statistical analysis we also examined the type of analysis applied to the data. We found that the use of logistic regression modeling has dramatically increased during this period (from 18.4% up to 87.2%), whereas application of the traditional Mantel-Haenszel technique for estimating summary odds ratios has nearly vanished. The correct approach for individually matched data in the logistic modeling framework, the conditional likelihood technique, has been unknown in the early part of the time window of our investigation, but is even nowadays applied by only three quarters of the corresponding studies. Our literature-based investigation provides thus compelling evidence that the type of control selection and statistical analysis used in case-control studies have changed substantially during recent years.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There has been a reduction in the number of matching factors employed, an increasing use of frequency matching, and more case-control studies with no matching at all.
“In response, there has been a reduction in the number of matching factors employed, an increasing use of frequency matching, which avoids some of the problems discussed above, and more case-control studies with no matching at all [ 54 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [54]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- Gefeller, O., Pfahlberg, A., Brenner, H., & Windeler, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Venue
- European Journal of Epidemiology
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 321-325
- ISSN
- 0393-2990 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7284
- OpenAlex
- W31679229
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- matching, case-control study, control selection, frequency matching, logistic regression, Mantel-Haenszel method, conditional likelihood, odds ratio estimation, statistical analysis methods
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Likelihood Functions, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies, Journalism, Medical, Patient Selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review