Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 9232759

Re-using data from case-control studies.

Abstract

Despite its ability to maximize statistical power while keeping data collection costs to a minimum, case-control sampling provides a non-representative sample of the population. When fitting a logistic regression model to data obtained in such a study, using the variable stratifying the population as the response, it is well known that the estimate of the constant term will be biased, but those of the coefficients of the covariates will not. However, subsequent to the case-control study, it is often desired to conduct a secondary analysis, using a variable that was previously a covariate in the main study as the response. If this new response is associated with the original variable used to stratify the population into cases and controls, a conventional logistic regression analysis will usually result in biased estimates of all the regression coefficients, not just the constant. This situation has recently been studied by Nagelkerke et al. who describe some situations where no bias occurs. In this paper we discuss how to calculate maximum likelihood estimates of all the regression coefficients, in the situation where the sampling rates for cases and controls are known. An example using data from the New Zealand Cot Death Study is presented.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A J Lee, L McMurchy, A J Scott. 1997-06-30. Re-using data from case-control studies.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970630)16%3A12%3C1377%3A%3Aaid-sim557%3E3.0.co%3B2-k

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Power and sample size calculations in case-control studies of gene-environment interactions: comments on different approaches.

Power and sample size considerations are critical for the design of epidemiologic studies of gene-environment interactions. Hwang et al. (Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:1029-37) and Foppa and Spiegelman (Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:596-604) have presented power and sample size calculations for case-control studies of gene-environment interactions. Comparisons of calculations using these approaches and an approach for general multivariate regression models for the odds ratio previously published by Lubin and Gail (Am J Epidemiol 1990; 131:552-66) have revealed substantial differences under some scenarios. These differences are the result of a highly restrictive characterization of the null hypothesis in Hwang et al. and Foppa and Spiegelman, which results in an underestimation of sample size and overestimation of power for the test of a gene-environment interaction. A computer program to perform sample size and power calculations to detect additive or multiplicative models of gene-environment interactions using the Lubin and Gail approach will be available free of charge in the near future from the National Cancer Institute.

Case-Control Studies

Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein-3.

BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is a potent mitogen for normal and neoplastic cells, whereas IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) inhibits cell growth in many experimental systems. Acromegalics, who have abnormally high levels of growth hormone and IGF-I, have higher rates of colorectal cancer. We therefore examined associations of plasma levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 with the risk of colorectal cancer in a prospective case-control study nested in the Physicians' Health Study. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected at baseline from 14916 men without diagnosed cancer. IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 were assayed among 193 men later diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 14 years of follow-up and among 318 age- and smoking-matched control subjects. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: IGFBP-3 levels correlated with IGF-I levels (r=.64) and with IGF-II levels (r=.90). After controlling for IGFBP-3, age, smoking, body mass index (weight in kg/[height in m]2), and alcohol intake, men in the highest quintile for IGF-I had an increased risk of colorectal cancer compared with men in the lowest quintile (relative risk [RR]=2.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.15-5.46; P for trend = .02). After controlling for IGF-I and other covariates, men with higher IGFBP-3 had a lower risk (RR=0.28; 95% CI=0.12-0.66; P for trend = .005, comparing extreme quintiles). The associations were consistent during the first and the second 7-year follow-up intervals and among younger and older men. IGF-II was not associated with risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that circulating IGF-I and IGFBP-3 are related to future risk of colorectal cancer.

Case-Control Studies