CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

Cancer case-control studies with other cancers as controls

SMITH, ALLAN H, PEARCE, NEIL E, CALLAS, PETER W·1988·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/17.2.298
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Theoretical considerations concerning the use of other cancer patients as controls in cancer case-control studies are reviewed. Selection bias may be a problem in that some other cancers may be caused by the exposure under study biasing the odds ratio towards unity. Such bias is noted to be greatest with low prevalence exposures associated with high attributable risks for other cancers. However, it may be possible to identify selection bias with other cancer controls using census or other general population data. In addition, using other cancers as controls has important advantages with regard to recall and interviewer bias, which may be of unknown magnitude and direction when using general population controls. A further disadvantage of general population controls is that separate selection of decreased controls should usually be made for deceased cases, whereas a mixture of live and deceased controls can be expected when selecting other cancer patients as controls. Since there are also logistical and cost advantages in using other cancer patients as controls, this study design is likely to be used increasingly in the future, particularly in cancer registry settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/17.2.298

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Using different controls in case-control studies has similar underlying principles to cross-context studies, but differences in exposure misclassification rather than confounding structures is the most common use.

    “Using different controls in case control studies22 has similar underlying principles to those described above for cross-context studies, but here differences in exposure misclassification (rather than confounding structures) is the most common use of this approach.22–24”

    From Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology (2017) · cites this paper as [22]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
SMITH, A. H., PEARCE, N. E., & CALLAS, P. W.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1988
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
298-306
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/17.2.298
OpenAlex
W2124300422
Cited by
80
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
selection bias, exposure bias, odds ratio bias, attributable risk, recall bias, interviewer bias, cancer registry data
MeSH terms
Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Neoplasms, Research Design

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