ASSESSING THE GAIN IN EFFICIENCY DUE TO MATCHING IN A COMMUNITY INTERVENTION STUDY

被引:43
作者
FREEDMAN, LS
GREEN, SB
BYAR, DP
机构
[1] Biometry Branch, DCPC, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892, Executive Plaza North
关键词
D O I
10.1002/sim.4780090810
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
COMMIT (Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation) is a randomized study employing a matched pairs design. Pairs of communities were selected on the basis of their geographical proximity and were chosen to be matched on variables strongly expected to relate to the outcome variable, the smoking quit rate. However, quantitative information was not available to evaluate the efficiency gain from matching. We have used baseline smoking quit rates in the communities as a surrogate for the outcome measure to evaluate the gain in efficiency from the matching. Our method takes account of the possible imperfection of the surrogate as a representative of the true outcome. The method estimates an efficiency gain of at least 50 per cent using the matched design. We also evaluate the further gains in efficiency which would be made by using the baseline quit rate to balance the randomization. Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:943 / 952
页数:10
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Cox D.R., Planning of Experiments, pp. 26-35, (1958)
[2]  
Pocock S.J., Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials, Biometrics, 35, pp. 183-197, (1979)
[3]  
Peto R., Pike M.C., Armitage P., Breslow N.E., Cox D.R., Howard S.V., Mantel N., McPherson K., Peto J., Smith P.G., Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design, British Journal of Cancer, 34, pp. 585-612, (1976)
[4]  
Cochran W.G., Matching in analytical studies, American Journal of Public Health, 43, pp. 684-691, (1953)
[5]  
Greenberg B.G., The use of covariance and balancing in analytical surveys, American Journal of Public Health, 43, pp. 692-699, (1953)
[6]  
Billewicz W.Z., The efficiency of matched samples: an empirical investigation, Biometrics, 21, pp. 623-643, (1965)
[7]  
Samuels M.L., Matching and design efficiency in epidemiological studies, Biometrika, 68, pp. 577-588, (1981)
[8]  
Thompson W.D., Kelsey J.L., Walter S.D., Cost and efficiency in the choice of matched and unmatched case‐control study designs, American Journal of Epidemiology, 116, pp. 840-851, (1982)
[9]  
Kanon J.M., Kupper L.L., In defense of matching, American Journal of Epidemiology, 116, pp. 852-866, (1982)
[10]  
Rubin D.B., Matching to remove bias in observational studies, Biometrics, 29, pp. 159-183, (1973)