Cited by 551Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Sibling Comparison Designs: Bias From Non-Shared Confounders and Measurement Error

Frisell, Thomas, Öberg, Sara, Kuja-Halkola, Ralf, Sjölander, Arvid·2012·Epidemiology

Abstract

Twins, full siblings, and half-siblings are increasingly used as comparison groups in matched cohort and matched case-control studies. The "within-pair" estimates acquired through these comparisons are free from confounding from all factors that are shared by the siblings. This has made sibling comparisons popular in studying associations thought likely to suffer confounding from socioeconomic or genetic factors. Despite the wide application of these designs in epidemiology, they have received little scrutiny from a statistical or methodological standpoint. In this paper we show, analytically and through a series of simulations, that the standard interpretation of the models is subject to several limitations that are rarely acknowledged.Although within-pair estimates will not be confounded by factors shared by the siblings, such estimates are more severely biased by non-shared confounders than the unpaired estimate. If siblings are less similar with regard to confounders than to the exposure under study, the within-pair estimate will always be more biased than the ordinary unpaired estimate. Attenuation of associations due to random measurement error in exposure will also be higher in the within-pair estimate, leading within-pair associations to be weaker than corresponding unpaired associations, even in the absence of confounding. Implications for the interpretation of sibling comparison results are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ede.0b013e31825fa230

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • Stronger associations in within-pair estimates than the full sample can result when confounding variable(s) within twin pairs have lower correlation than the correlation of exposure to a risk factor within twin pairs.

    “Stronger associations in within-pair estimates than the full sample can result when confounding variable(s) within twin pairs have lower correlation than the correlation of exposure to a risk factor within twin pairs (Frisell, Öberg, Kuja-Halkola, & Sjölander, 2012).”

    From Stressful life events increase the risk of major depressive episodes: A population-based twin study (2023) · cites this paper as Frisell, Öberg, Kuja-Halkola, & Sjölander, 2012

  • The co-twin control design is unable to control for non-shared confounders that only affect one twin, which can bias estimated effects.

    “Although the co-twin control design increases control over genetic and shared environmental confounders, it is unable to control for non-shared confounders that only affect one twin, which can bias estimated effects (Frisell et al., 2012; Kendler & Gardner, 2010).”
  • Self-reported information on snus use may be inaccurate, which may lead to information bias towards the null.

    “The self-reported information on snus use by the mothers may be inaccurate, which may lead to information bias towards the null.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frisell, T., Öberg, S., Kuja-Halkola, R., & Sjölander, A.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Frisell, Thomas
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2012-09
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
713-720
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982984257
Cited by
551
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 4
FWCI
30.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
twins, full siblings, half-siblings, matched case-control studies, matched cohort, confounding, bias
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Linear Models, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies, Matched-Pair Analysis, Twin Studies as Topic, Siblings

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