Cited by 20Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Combined Analysis of Matched and Unmatched Case-Control Studies: Comparison of Risk Estimates from Different Studies

Moreno, V., Martin, M. L., Bosch, F. X., de Sanjose, S., Torres, F., Munoz, N.·1996·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The authors propose a method to perform a combined analysis of matched and unmatched case-control studies that is based on an adaptation of logistic regression and can be performed using standard software. This methodology can be used to do pooled analyses of studies with different designs. Likelihood ratio tests can be performed to assess association, heterogeneity, or trend. The standard errors of the coefficients allow the derivation of a Wald test and the calculation of confidence intervals. Another application is to compare relative risk estimators for the same risk factors studied in different phases of a disease in an effort to explore factors that may be more important in one phase than in another. Interaction terms of risk factors with variables that code the different pooled studies can be used for this purpose. The advantage of using this method is that a formal statistical comparison can be performed in which the regression coefficients of the interaction terms estimate the relative differences in risk (odds ratio ratios) between the studies. This estimation can be adjusted for other confounder factors. Two examples of application using data from case-control studies on cervical cancer and colorectal cancer are presented to illustrate the use of this epidemiologic method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008741

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moreno, V., Martin, M. L., Bosch, F. X., de Sanjose, S., Torres, F., & Munoz, N.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Duran i Reynals Hospital (ES)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1996-02-01
Volume
143
Issue
3
Pages
293-300
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2138864933
Cited by
20
References
16
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
matched case-control studies, pooled analysis, logistic regression, heterogeneity, likelihood ratio test, Wald test, confidence intervals, interaction terms, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colombia, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Male, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sexual Partners, Smoking, Spain, Colorectal Neoplasms, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment

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