Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11706653

Field-based random sampling without a sampling frame: control selection for a case-control study in rural Africa.

A C Crampin·V Mwinuka·S S Malema·J R Glynn·P E Fine
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Selection bias, particularly of controls, is common in case-control studies and may materially affect the results. Methods of control selection should be tailored both for the risk factors and disease under investigation and for the population being studied. We present here a control selection method devised for a case-control study of tuberculosis in rural Africa (Karonga, northern Malawi) that selects an age/sex frequency-matched random sample of the population, with a geographical distribution in proportion to the population density. We also present an audit of the selection process, and discuss the potential of this method in other settings.

Explore related subjects

BiasCase-Control StudiesHIV InfectionsHumansMalawiRandom AllocationRural HealthSelection BiasTuberculosisJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A C Crampin, V Mwinuka, S S Malema, J R Glynn, P E Fine. Field-based random sampling without a sampling frame: control selection for a case-control study in rural Africa.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0035-9203(01)90009-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2002

Influence of unrecognized molecular heterogeneity on randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: In solid tumor oncology, decisions regarding treatment and eligibility for trials are governed by histologic diagnosis. Despite this reliance on histology and the assumption that histology defines the disease, underlying molecular heterogeneity likely differentiates among patients' outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To illustrate how unrecognized molecular heterogeneity might obscure a truly effective new therapy for cancer, we analyzed the planning assumptions and results of a hypothetical randomized controlled trial of chemoradiotherapy for a cancer found to be drug sensitive in preliminary phase II studies. RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials of effective cancer therapies can be falsely negative if therapeutic benefit is overestimated during study design because of enrichment of phase II trials for treatment-sensitive subtypes, a beneficial effect in responding patients is diluted by large numbers of nonresponding patients, or a beneficial effect in responders is reversed by a negative effect in nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Molecular heterogeneity, if it confers different risks to patients and is unaccounted for in the design of a randomized study, can result in a clinical trial that is underpowered and fails to detect a truly effective new therapy for cancer.

Bias↗
PubMed2002

Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein-protein interactions.

Comprehensive protein protein interaction maps promise to reveal many aspects of the complex regulatory network underlying cellular function. Recently, large-scale approaches have predicted many new protein interactions in yeast. To measure their accuracy and potential as well as to identify biases, strengths and weaknesses, we compare the methods with each other and with a reference set of previously reported protein interactions.

Bias↗