IJE Advance Access published online on April 22, 2004
International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyh097
© 2004 by International Epidemiological Association
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Statistics, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cologne{at}rerf.or.jp.
Background Studies of the effect of exposure to a risk factor measured in an entire cohort may be augmented by nested case-control subsets to investigate confounding or effect modification by additional factors not practically assessed on all cohort members. We compared three control-selection strategies--matching on exposure, counter matching on exposure, and random sampling--to determine which was most efficient in a situation where exposure is a known, continuous variable and high doses are rare. Methods We estimated the power to detect interaction using four control-to-case ratios (1:1, 2:1, 4:1, and 8:1) in a planned case-control study of the joint effect of atomic bomb radiation exposure and serum oestradiol levels on breast cancer. Radiation dose is measured in the entire cohort, but because neither serum oestradiol level nor the true degree of interaction was known, we simulated values of oestradiol and hypothetical levels of oestradiol-radiation interaction. Results Compared with random sampling, power to detect interaction was similarly higher with either matching or counter matching with two or more controls. Conclusions Because counter matching is generally at least as efficient as random sampling, whereas matching on exposure can result in loss of efficiency and precludes estimation of exposure risk, we recommend counter matching for selecting controls in nested case-control studies of the joint effects of multiple risk factors when one is previously measured in the full cohort.
Original paper
Improving the efficiency of nested case-control studies of interaction by selecting controls using counter matching on exposure
2 Department of Epidemiology, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan
3 Department of Clinical Studies, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan
4 Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, National Public Health Institute, Finland
5 Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, US
6 Department of Radiobiology/Molecular Epidemiology, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. Ohishi, S. Fujiwara, J. B. Cologne, G. Suzuki, M. Akahoshi, N. Nishi, I. Takahashi, and K. Chayama Risk Factors for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Japanese Population: A Nested Case-Control Study Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 846 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Keogh Inverse sampling of controls in a matched case control study Biostat., January 1, 2008; 9(1): 152 - 158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Suzuki, H. Cullings, S. Fujiwara, N. Hattori, S. Matsuura, M. Hakoda, M. Akahoshi, K. Kodama, and E. Tahara Low-Positive Antibody Titer against Helicobacter pylori Cytotoxin-Associated Gene A (CagA) May Predict Future Gastric Cancer Better Than Simple Seropositivity against H. pylori CagA or against H. pylori Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2007; 16(6): 1224 - 1228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. D. Smith Classics in epidemiology: should they get it right? Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2004; 33(3): 441 - 442. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|