Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3597690

Guidelines for reading case-control studies.

M J Lichtenstein·C D Mulrow·P C Elwood
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80-90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75-80% considered information on methods of data collection, "blinding" of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential. Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.

Explore related subjects

Epidemiologic MethodsEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansNorth AmericaPeriodicals as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M J Lichtenstein, C D Mulrow, P C Elwood. 1987. Guidelines for reading case-control studies.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1996

Standard error and sample size determination for estimation of probabilities based on a test variable.

A method of sample size determination for estimation of probabilities based on a test variable is presented. Applications to estimation of sensitivity and specificity of medical tests are the focus of this research, although the methods can be applied to other areas of study such as engineering reliability. Examples are given for determining sample sizes required for the classification of patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus based on the incidence of several markers. In this example, the test variable is the number of markers present. The methodology employs a weighted average of model-based and non-model-based estimates of the probability with the weights determined by the closeness to or the confidence in the given model. Formulas and charts required for determining sample size are provided for test variables that can be modeled by the binomial, Poisson, or normal distributions, i.e., for the most commonly encountered distributions for counting events (binomial and Poisson) and for measurements (normal). However, the methods given can be applied to any distribution, including multivariate. Especially when relatively small probabilities (the rare events) are being estimated, the techniques provided assistance in safeguarding against undersampling brought on by unwarranted confidence in a test variable distribution and against oversampling required for high accuracy in non-model-based probability estimators.

Epidemiologic Methods↗
PubMed1996

Behavior and interpretation of the kappa statistic: resolution of the two paradoxes.

Two apparent paradoxes have been identified for the kappa (kappa) statistic: (1) high levels of observer agreement with low kappa values; (2) lack of predictability of changes in kappa with changing marginals. The first paradox is a function of prevalence of the trait in the sample, while the second is related to symmetry of observations in the disagreement categories. While examining the behavior of kappa as a function of the distribution of responses in a contingency table, it was discovered that for any measured level of observer agreement (Po) there are three characteristic values of kappa: kappa max, kappa min, and kappa nor, each of which is a function only of Po. The characteristic values allow an observed kappa (kappa o) to be placed into perspective. By observing symmetry in agreement and disagreement categories, the behavior of kappa is readily understood and predictable. We define symmetry expressions for agreement (SA) and disagreement (SD) in order to represent and quantify these effects. Kappa alone has little interpretive value and we recommend that studies reporting kappa also report Po, SD, and P++ (agreement on the presence of the trait).

Epidemiologic Methods↗
PubMed1996

Epidemiology of erythema exsudativum multiforme majus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis in Germany (1990-1992): structure and results of a population-based registry.

The severe skin reactions erythema exsudativum multiforme majus (EEM with mucosal involvement, EEMM), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are difficult to study as they are very rare diseases with an incidence of about two cases per 1 million inhabitants per year. We report on the structure of a registry with the aim of ascertaining all hospitalized cases of EEMM, SJS, and TEN in western Germany and Berlin. The registry is structured as an intensive reporting system, regularly contacting more than 1500 departments including 100% of the burn units (n = 34), departments of pediatrics (n = 241), departments of dermatology (n = 106), and 100% of all internal medicine departments in hospitals with intensive care facilities or with more than 200 beds (n = 1161). With a coverage rate up to 95% based on the number of responding departments between April 1, 1990 and December 31, 1992, from a total of 767 reported cases 353 patients with EEMM, SJS, and TEN were finally included in the registry. Most of these patients were directly reported to the registry; only 2.54% (9 of 353) were primarily registered by the German spontaneous reporting systems. Assuming an average population of 64.5 million for western Germany and Berlin an incidence up to 1.89 per 1 million inhabitants per year could be calculated for SJS and TEN.

Epidemiologic Methods↗