CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14,689Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease

Nathan Mantel, William M. Haenszel·1959·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
DOI 10.1093/jnci/22.4.719
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The role and limitations of retrospective investigations of factors possibly associated with the occurrence of a disease are discussed and their relationship to forward-type studies emphasized. Examples of situations in which misleading associations could arise through the use of inappropriate control groups are presented. The possibility of misleading associations may be minimized by controlling or matching on factors which could produce such associations; the statistical analysis will then be modified. Statistical methodology is presented for analyzing retrospective study data, including chi-square measures of statistical significance of the observed association between the disease and the factor under study, and measures for interpreting the association in terms of an increased relative risk of disease. An extension of the chi-square test to the situation where data are subclassified by factors controlled in the analysis is given. A summary relative risk formula, R, is presented and discussed in connection with the problem of weighting the individual subcategory relative risks according to their importance or their precision. Alternative relative-risk formulas, R1, R2, R3, and R4, which require the calculation of subcategory-adjusted proportions of the study factor among diseased persons and controls for the computation of relative risks, are discussed. While these latter formulas may be useful in many instances, they may be biased or inconsistent and are not, in fact, ave…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/22.4.719

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14,689

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. M.
Affiliations
National Cancer Institute (US)
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1959-04
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
719-48
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/22.4.719
OpenAlex
W2150000105
Cited by
14,689
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 268 · 2023: 297 · 2022: 326 · 2021: 467 · 2020: 479 · 2019: 451 · 2018: 499 · 2017: 551 · 2016: 517 · 2015: 749 · 2014: 815 · 2013: 823 · 2012: 635
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (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 › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
retrospective analysis, case-control study, control group selection, confounding, relative risk, chi-square test, subclassification, women
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Statistics as Topic

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