The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Double Robust Approach to Causal Effects in Case-Control Studies
Open accessAbstract
In a recent issue of the Journal, VanderWeele and Vansteelandt (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(10):1197-1203) discussed an inverse probability weighting method for case-control studies that could be used to estimate an additive interaction effect, referred to as the "relative excess risk due to interaction." In this article, we reinforce the well-known disadvantages of inverse probability weighting and comment on the desirability of the described parameter. Further, we review an existing double robust estimator not considered by VanderWeele and Vansteelandt, the case-control-weighted targeted maximum likelihood estimator, which has improved properties in comparison with a previously described inverse-probability-weighted estimator. This targeted maximum likelihood estimator can be used to target various parameters of interest, and its implementation has been described previously for the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Adjusting for time varying confounders is difficult in a matched case-control study.
“Adjusting for time varying confounders is difficult in a matched case-control study.31 46”
From Anticholinergic drugs and risk of dementia: case-control study (2018) · cites this paper as [46]
The paper’s introductory discussion says that a simple unmatched case-control estimator does not adjust for covariates and that controlling confounding is a strong concern. It also discusses matched case-control studies, but does not say that adjusting for time-varying confounders in those studies is difficult. The general concern is supported; the specific claim is not. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Robins, J. (1986) · Mathematical Modelling · doi:10.1016/0270-0255(86)90088-6 · Cited by 2,451
Why Match? Investigating Matched Case-Control Study Designs with Causal Effect Estimation
Rose, S., & van der Laan, M. J. (2009) · The International Journal of Biostatistics · doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1127 · Cited by 293
Self-citationMortality Risk Score Prediction in an Elderly Population Using Machine Learning
Rose, S. (2013) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kws241 · Cited by 193
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- 1999, 14, 281
- Hern n, 2000, Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 11, 561, 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012 · DOI
- Hern n, 2002, Statistics in medicine, 21, 1689, 10.1002/sim.1144 · DOI
- Cole, 2003, American Journal of Epidemiology, 158, 687, 10.1093/aje/kwg206 · DOI
- Bodnar, 2004, American Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 926, 10.1093/aje/kwh131 · DOI
- Tager, 2004, Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 15, 479, 10.1097/01.ede.0000128401.55545.c6 · DOI · Paper page
- 2005, American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 607, 10.1093/aje/kwi254 · DOI
- 2007, American Journal of Epidemiology, 166, 219, 10.1093/aje/kwm047 · DOI
- 2007, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45, 908, 10.1086/521250 · DOI
- 2005, 129, 405, 10.1016/j.jspi.2004.06.060 · DOI
- 2010, 6, 14
- 2012, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21, 31, 10.1177/0962280210386207 · DOI · Paper page
- 2011, American Journal of Epidemiology, 174, 1197, 10.1093/aje/kwr334 · DOI
- Wang, 2011, 81, 792, 10.1016/j.spl.2010.11.001 · DOI
- 2011, Biometrics, 68, 541
- Tager, 1998, American Journal of Epidemiology, 147, 921, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009382 · DOI
- 1951, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 11, 1269, 10.1093/jnci/11.6.1269 · DOI
- ANDERSON, 1972, Biometrika, 59, 19, 10.1093/biomet/59.1.19 · DOI
- PRENTICE, 1978, Biometrika, 65, 153, 10.1093/biomet/65.1.153 · DOI
- Weinberg, 1991, American Journal of Epidemiology, 134, 421, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116104 · DOI
- 2009, J R STAT SOC SERIES B STAT METHODOL, 71, 947, 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2009.00712.x · DOI
- Qian, 1994, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 3, 3
- Liu, 2007, Lancet, 369, 1582, 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60723-5 · DOI
- Liu, 2009, Emerging infectious diseases, 15, 1819, 10.3201/eid1511.090263 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anticholinergic drugs and risk of dementia: case-control study
Richardson, K., Fox, C., Maidment, I., Steel, N., Loke, Y. K., Arthur, A., Myint, P. K., Grossi, C. M., Mattishent, K., Bennett, K., et al. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k1315 · Cited by 520
Understanding Marginal Structural Models for Time-Varying Exposures: Pitfalls and Tips
Shinozaki, T., & Suzuki, E. (2020) · Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.2188/jea.je20200226 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Rose, S., & van der Laan, M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rose, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-01-31
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 663-669
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- PMC
- PMC3939846
- OpenAlex
- W2152601455
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- U.S. Public Health Service (R01 A1074345-01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- doubly robust estimation, case-control study, inverse probability weighting, additive interaction, relative excess risk due to interaction, targeted maximum likelihood estimation, causal effect estimation, risk difference, odds ratio, relative risk
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Epidemiologic Research Design, Causality, Case-Control Studies
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
