Response rates among control subjects in case-control studies☆

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha L. Slattery ◽  
Sandra L. Edwards ◽  
Bette J. Caan ◽  
Richard A. Kerber ◽  
John D. Potter
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 385-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengting Xu ◽  
Lesley Richardson ◽  
Sally Campbell ◽  
Javier Pintos ◽  
Jack Siemiatycki

2012 ◽  
Vol 185 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Olsson ◽  
Roel Vermeulen ◽  
Hans Kromhout ◽  
Susan Peters ◽  
Per Gustavsson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Xin Li ◽  
Hai Xin ◽  
Xiang-Yan Zhang ◽  
Cui-Ying Wei ◽  
Yu-He Duan ◽  
...  

The association between Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) infection and diabetes mellitus remains controversial. With the improvement of living standards, the prevalence rate of diabetes is steadily increasing in China. Thus, it is necessary to explore the possible association between toxoplasmosis and diabetes mellitus in China. Hence, case-control studies were conducted to explore the T. gondii seroprevalence and identify the risk factors and possible transmission routes of T. gondii infection in different types of diabetes, including type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and gestational diabetes (GDM) patients in China. Four hundred serum samples for each type of diabetes mellitus, matched with 400 control subjects for each group, were collected and examined for anti-T. gondii IgG and IgM antibodies using commercially available enzyme immunoassay kits. The total T. gondii seroprevalence in T1DM, T2DM, and GDM patients was 16.50%, 23.50%, and 21.25%, respectively. Each type of diabetes mellitus patients had a significantly higher T. gondii seroprevalence than the control subjects. Multivariate regression identified three variables as risk factors for T. gondii infection in diabetes patients, including keeping cats at home and consumption of raw oysters for T1DM patients and consumption of raw/undercooked meat and raw oysters for T2DM patients, which may help to guide future research and control policies in diabetes mellitus patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengting Xu ◽  
Lesley Richardson ◽  
Sally Campbell ◽  
Javier Pintos ◽  
Jack Siemiatycki

Purpose: We assessed the quality of reporting of response rates in published case-control studies of cancer over the past fourdecades.Methods: We reviewed all case-control studies of cancer published in twelve major epidemiology, public health, and generalmedicine journals in four publication periods (1984-86, 1995, 2005, and 2013). Information on study base ascertainment, datacollection methods, population characteristics, response rates, and reasons for non-participation was extracted. Quality of responserate reporting was assessed based on the amount of pertinent information reported, and in particular, numbers of non-participantsby reasons for non-participation. We calculated subject response rates by quality of response rate reporting.Results: A total of 370 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a total of 370 case series and 422 control series. Overall,the quality of reporting of response rate and reasons for non-participation was poor. There was a tendency for better quality ofreporting of case series, followed by population control series, and lastly by medical source control series. Quality of reportingdeclined from 1995 to 2013.Conclusion: The reporting of relevant information on response rates in case-control studies of cancer has been rather poor, and ithas not improved over time. This compromises our ability to assess validity of studies’ findings.


2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed A. Barash ◽  
Blair T. Johnson ◽  
David I. Gregorio

Objective.To determine whether methodological differences explain divergent results in case-control studies examining surgery as a risk factor for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).Methods.After case-control studies were systematically identified using PubMed, we performed a homogeneity analysis and applied models to effect sizes (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) using 2 parameters: type of control subject used and consistency of data ascertainment. The hospitals and communities were located in Europe, Japan, and Australia. Patients were CJD case subjects and age- and sex-matched control subjects in the hospital or community. Because of the natural history of the disease, CJD subjects are not considered reliable sources of information for these studies. Therefore, individuals who are considered close to the subjects and who have knowledge of their medical history, including spouses and relatives, are necessarily identified as proxy informants for the surgical record of the case subjects.Results.Overall, the effect sizes lacked homogeneity (P<.0001). Three studies that used control subjects from the community revealed a significantly elevated risk of CJD for patients who underwent surgery (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35 [P<.0001 ]), whereas 3 investigations that used control subjects from the hospital revealed a significantly reduced risk (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90 [P = .0069]). Two studies that used proxy informants to acquire information about case subjects and control subjects (consistent ascertainment) found that the risk of CJD was significantly lower in those subjects who underwent surgery (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.87 [P = .0043]). Conversely, 4 studies in which proxy informants acted only on behalf of case subjects (inconsistent data ascertainment) found a significant positive association between surgery and CJD (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.32-2.12 [P<.0001 ]). Both models fit the data very well, leaving no remaining variance in effect sizes to explain.Conclusion.Variation in the type of control subjects used and in exposure assessment in case-control studies may partially explain conflicting data regarding the association between surgery and CJD. However, there was almost complete confounding of these 2 parameters, making interpretation more difficult. Planning of future investigations must carefully consider these design elements.


Author(s):  
Ruth H. Keogh ◽  
D. R. Cox

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document