Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | leo-joseph |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Introduction to Study Design: Case Control and Cohort Studies
Martin L. Lesser, Ph.D.
Biostatistics Unit
Feinstein Institute for Medical Research North Shore – Long Island Jewish
Health System
Copyright 2000-2002
CME Disclosure Statement• The North Shore LIJ Health System adheres to the ACCME's new
Standards for Commercial Support. Any individuals in a position to control the content of a CME activity, including faculty, planners and managers, are required to disclose all financial relationships with commercial interests. All identified potential conflicts of interest are thoroughly vetted by the North Shore-LIJ for fair balance and scientific objectivity and to ensure appropriateness of patient care recommendations.
• Course Director, Kevin Tracey, has disclosed a commercial interest in Setpoint, Inc. as the cofounder, for stock and consulting support. He has resolved his conflicts by identifying a faculty member to conduct content review of this program who has no conflicts.
• The speaker, Martin L. Lesser, PhD, has no conflicts.
2
Case Control Studies
4
Sequence of Epidemiologic and Clinical Research
Anecdotal Observation
Case-Control Study
and/orCohort Study
Clinical Trial
Copyright 2000-2002
5
The Basic Idea
A Case-Control Study is an observational study that begins with cases of disease and compares them to controls without disease with respect to exposure to a factor. 1. Hypothesize that exposure (E) to a certain factor
increases an individual's risk of developing the disease (D) or condition being studied
2. Choose a sample of people with the disease or condition
being studied (cases) 3. Choose a sample of people without the disease WHO
ARE AS SIMILAR TO THE CASES IN ALL OTHER WAYS (controls)
4. Compute the proportion of cases and controls who were
"exposed" to the hypothesized risk factor 5. Compare the two proportions. (In actuality, we compare
the "odds" of being exposed.)
Copyright 2000-2002
6
Features of Case-Control Studies
1. Observational - no intervention is involved
2. Retrospective - relies on recall and documentation ofevents that occurred prior to selection of cases andcontrols
3. Calculates odds ratio as a measure of risk
Copyright 2000-2002
7
Selecting Cases
1. Definition of cases - homogeneity of disease entity; strictdiagnostic criteria
2. Sources of cases - hospitals, medical practices; diseaseregistries; general population
3. Prevalent vs. incident cases (existing vs. newly diagnosed cases)
Copyright 2000-2002
8
Selecting Controls
Controls must be selected to represent the population of individuals who would have been identified and included as cases had they also developed the disease.
1. Definition of controls - free of the disease in question; similar to
cases in all other respects 2. Sources of controls - hospital, medical practice; community-at-
large, community organizations; workforce; department of motor vehicles; friends, relatives, neighbors
3. Matching cases and controls...
Copyright 2000-2002
9
Confounding
A factor F is called a "confounding variable" if F is associated with the exposure (E) and F independently is associated with the risk of developing the disease (D). ** Important: To be a confounder, F, must satisfy both of the above conditions. Matching cases and controls on F is the solution to confounding.
Copyright 2000-2002
10
Situations in Which Matching on F is Proper
E E
D D
F F
Situation A Situation B
A: Indirect association between E and D E=alcohol use D=lung cancer F=smoking
B: E and F are both risk factors and are associated with each otherE=OC use D=myocardial infarction F=smoking
Reference: Schlesselman, 1982
Copyright 2000-2002
11
E E
D D
F F
Situations in Which Matching on F is Unnecessary
Situation C Situation D
C: F is associated with D independently of E, but F is not associated with EE=blood group O D=venous thromboembolism F=age
D: F is associated with E, but is not a risk factor for DE=regular exercise D=(lack of) MI F=fluid intake
Reference: Schlesselman, 1982
Copyright 2000-2002
12
Logistics of Matching
1. Specification of matching criteria (categorical, “calipers”, etc.)
2. Individual (1:1, 1:n) vs. frequency matching
Copyright 2000-2002
13
Propensity Score Matching
Copyright 2000-2002
• A method of matching subjects in treatment and control groups with similar propensity scores (i.e. the propensity to receive treatment based upon a set of certain covariates).
• Goal: Find subjects with the same a priori likelihood of being in the treatment group.
• Reduces bias in measured characteristics only
)covariates|treatment Pr(receive )(PS Score Propensity
14
Propensity Score Matching
Copyright 2000-2002
1. Use logistic regression to model the probability of being in the treatment group. Include any covariates that may be related to receiving treatment.
2. Predict the probability of being in the treatment group (propensity score).
3. Match subjects with the “same” propensity score (one in the treatment group, one in the control group). ** Don’t have to match exactly
Caliper’s matching
4. Use standard analyses for matched data
5. Calculate standardized differences after matching to check for balance. |Stzd D| > 10% indicates poor balance.
0.02)PS (i.e.
2
/100 22controltreatment
controltreatment
ssxxDStzd
15
Sources of Bias
1. Recall bias (cases are more (or less) likely to recall exposure than controls)
2. Reporting accuracy bias (cases or more (or less) likely to report accurately)
3. Selection bias (cases are not representative of those with disease)
4. Detection bias (exposed subjects are more (or less) likely to be screened for disease)
5. Referral bias (controls are referred to the health care system for an “unrelated”
health problem, that is actually related to the disease under study)
Copyright 2000-2002
16
Cases Controls
Exposure Yes
a b ab
Exposure
No
c d
cd
Total ac bd abcd
Odds of exposure in "D=yes" group = [a/(a+c)] / [c/(a+c)] Odds of exposure in "D=no" group = [b/(b+d)] / [d/(b+d)] Odds ratio (OR) = (ad) / (bc)
Computing the Odds Ratio
Copyright 2000-2002
17
Interpreting The Odds Ratio
OR is always greater than zero (unless there is a zero cell count) OR > 1 means that E increases risk of D OR = 1 means that E is not associated with D OR < 1 means that E is protective against D
Copyright 2000-2002
18
Odds Ratio: Example
Does oral contraceptive use increase the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack)?
Myocardial Infarction
Yes No
Current Yes 23 304 OC Use No 133 2816 OR = 23x2816 = 1.6
304x133
Women who are current OC users have 1.6 times greater risk of MI than non-users
Copyright 2000-2002
19
Establishing Causality
1. Temporal sequence 2. Consistency of association 3. Strength of association 4. Dose-response relationship 5. Biological plausibility
Copyright 2000-2002
20
Advantages and Disadvantages of Case-Control Designs
Advantages
1. Well suited to the study of rare diseases or those with long latency. 2. Relatively quick to mount and conduct. 3. Relatively inexpensive. 4. Requires comparatively few subjects. 5. Existing records can occasionally be used. 6. Little or no risk to subjects. 7. Allows study of multiple potential causes of a disease.
Disadvantages
1. Relies on recall or records for information on past exposures. 2. Validation of information is difficult or sometimes impossible. 3. Control of extraneous variables may be incomplete. 4. Selection of an appropriate comparison group may be difficult. 5. Rates of disease in exposed and unexposed individuals cannot be determined. 6. Method relatively unfamiliar to medical community and difficult to explain. 7. Detailed study of mechanism is rarely possible. Reference: Schlesselman, 1982.
Copyright 2000-2002
Case-Control vs. Cohort Study
Rare diseases
Diseases with long latency
Data quality
Relatively inexpensive
Estimate incidence rate of disease
Little or no risk to subjects
Requires comparatively fewer subjects
Describe natural history of diseases
Relatively quick to mount and conduct
Allows study of multiple potential causes of a disease
Allows study of multiple potential effects of an exposure
Case Control
Cohort
(prospective)
Copyright 2000-2002
Cohort Studies
Sequence of Epidemiologic and Clinical Research
Anecdotal Observation
Case-Control Study
and/orCohort Study
Clinical Trial
Copyright 2000-2002
The Basic Idea
A Cohort Study is an observational study that begins with subjects exposed and subjects not exposed to a potential risk factor with follow-up over time to determine and compare the incidence of disease in the exposed vs. unexposed.
1. Hypothesize that exposure (E) to a certain factor
increases an individual's risk of developing the disease (D) or condition being studied
2. Choose a sample of people who are or have been
"exposed" to the factor 3. Choose a sample of people who have not been
exposed to the factor, WHO ARE AS SIMILAR TO THE CASES IN ALL OTHER WAYS
4. Compute the incidence of disease in the exposed
and unexposed groups 5. Compare the two incidence rates
Copyright 2000-2002
Features of Cohort Studies
1. Observational - no intervention is involved
2. Prospective or Retrospective - depending on the temporalrelationship between the initiation of the study and theoccurrence of the disease; in both designs, subjects arefollowed through time
3. Calculates relative risk as a measure of risk
Copyright 2000-2002
Selecting Exposed Subjects
1. Definition of exposure - exposure status must be well-defined and, preferably, measurable
2. Sources of exposed subjects - people in certain occupations;
persons living near environmental hazards; persons with certain lifestyles; persons who have utilized a certain drug or chemical; persons who participate in certain activities
3. Cohorts should also be selected for their ability to facilitate the
collection of relevant data. Examples: doctors, nurses, workers in a company, union members, students
Copyright 2000-2002
Selecting Unexposed Subjects
1. Definition of unexposed - free of the exposure in question; similar tothe exposed cohort in all other respects
2. Sources for the unexposed comparison group - same as forexposed; external source
Copyright 2000-2002
Matching
1. Matching is not often carried out in cohort studies due to sample size,expense, and logistics
2. Statistical adjustments can be made for confounding variables
Copyright 2000-2002
Bias and Other Problems
1. Exposure misclassification bias 2. Change in exposure level over time 3. Loss to follow-up 4. Non-participation bias 5. Reporting bias 6. Healthy worker effect
Copyright 2000-2002
Sources of Exposure Information
1. Pre-existing records
2. Interviews, questionnaires
3. Direct physical examination or tests
4. Direct measurement of the environment
5. Daily logs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
advantages and disadvantages
Copyright 2000-2002
Sources of Outcome Information
1. Death certificates
2. Physician and hospital records
3. Disease registries
4. Self-report
5. Direct physical examination or tests
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
advantages and disadvantages
Copyright 2000-2002
Computing the Relative Risk
Incidence of Disease in Exposed Group = a/(a+b) Incidence of Disease in Unexposed Group = c/(c+d) Relative risk = RR = [a/(a+b)]/[c/(c+d)] = a(c+d) / [c(a+b)]
Disease Yes No
Exposure Yes
a b ab
Exposure
No
c d
cd
Total ac bd abcd
Copyright 2000-2002
Interpreting the Relative Risk
RR > 0
RR > 1 means that E increases risk of D
RR = 1 means that E is not associated with D
RR < 1 means that E is protective against D
Copyright 2000-2002
Relative Risk: Example
Does oral contraceptive use increase the risk of thrombophlebitis?
Thrombophlebitis
Yes No
Yes 30 970 OC
Use No 3 997 RR = .03 = 30x1000 =10
.003 3x1000
Women who use OC have 10 times greater risk of thrombophlebitis than non-users
1000
1000
Copyright 2000-2002
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cohort Method
Advantages
1. In principle, provides a complete description of experience subsequent to exposure, including rates of progression, staging of the disease, and natural history.
2. Allows study of multiple potential effects of a given exposure, thereby obtaining information on potential benefits as well as risks.
3. Allows for the calculation of rates of the disease in exposed and unexposed individuals.
4. Permits flexibility in choosing variables to be systematically recorded. 5. Allows for thorough quality control in measurement of study variables.
Disadvantages
1. Large numbers of subjects are required to study rare diseases. 2. Potentially long duration for follow-up. 3. Current practice, usage, or exposure to study factors may change, making
findings irrelevant. 4. Relatively expensive to conduct. 5. Maintaining follow-up is difficult. 6. Control of extraneous variables may be incomplete. 7. Detailed study of mechanism is rarely possible. Reference: Schlesselman, 1982.
Copyright 2000-2002
Cohort vs. Case-Control Study
Rare diseases
Diseases with long latency
Data quality
Relatively inexpensive
Estimate incidence rate of disease
Little or no risk to subjects
Requires comparatively fewer subjects
Describe natural history of diseases
Relatively quick to mount and conduct
Allows study of multiple potential causes of a disease
Allows study of multiple potential effects of an exposure
Cohort
(prospective)
Case-Control