scholarly journals A Small Sample Correction for Estimating Attributable Risk in Case-Control Studies

Author(s):  
Daniel B Rubin
Author(s):  
Mark Elwood

This chapter shows the format and derivation of results from studies. Cohort and intervention studies yield relative risk and risk difference, also known as attributable risk, and number needed to treat (NNT). Count and person-time methods are shown. Additive and multiplicative models for two or more exposures are shown. Case-control studies give primarily odds ratio; the relationship between this and relative risk is explained. Different sampling schemes for case-control studies include methods were a case can also be a control. Surveys yield results similar to cohort studies.


Author(s):  
Jeremy A Labrecque ◽  
Myriam M G Hunink ◽  
M Arfan Ikram ◽  
M Kamran Ikram

Abstract Case-control studies are an important part of the epidemiologic literature, yet confusion remains about how to interpret estimates from different case-control study designs. We demonstrate that not all case-control study designs estimate odds ratios. On the contrary, case-control studies in the literature often report odds ratios as their main parameter even when using designs that do not estimate odds ratios. Only studies using specific case-control designs should report odds ratios, whereas the case-cohort and incidence-density sampled case-control studies must report risk ratio and incidence rate ratios, respectively. This also applies to case-control studies conducted in open cohorts, which often estimate incidence rate ratios. We also demonstrate the misinterpretation of case-control study estimates in a small sample of highly cited case-control studies in general epidemiologic and medical journals. We therefore suggest that greater care be taken when considering which parameter is to be reported from a case-control study.


1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maura Mezzetti ◽  
Monica Ferraroni ◽  
Adriano Decarli ◽  
Carlo La Vecchia ◽  
Jacques Benichou

Author(s):  
Guy M. Goodwin ◽  
Michael Browning

Neuroimaging techniques have been used extensively to compare brain structure and function between patients with, or at risk of, depression and control subjects. The goal of this work has largely been to identify pathophysiological processes in depression. However, progress in this field has been limited by the heterogeneity of patient populations, the use of small sample sizes, and an overreliance on case-control studies. These limitations have increasingly been acknowledged with recent work collecting much larger samples and employing a variety of study designs, including those able to stratify patient populations. This chapter reviews imaging studies in depression, highlighting both outstanding questions and promising recent findings.


1991 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1142-1143
Author(s):  
FABIO PARAZZINI ◽  
ALLAN HILDESHEIM ◽  
MONICA FERRARONI ◽  
CARLO LA VECCHIA ◽  
LOUISE BRINTON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document