THE DESIGN OF CASE-CONTROL STUDIES - THE EFFECT OF CONFOUNDING ON SAMPLE-SIZE REQUIREMENTS

被引:9
作者
DRESCHER, K
TIMM, J
JOCKEL, KH
机构
[1] Institute of Statistics, University of Bremen, Bremen, D-2800
[2] Bremen Institute of Prevention Research and Social Medicine, Bremen, D-2800
关键词
D O I
10.1002/sim.4780090706
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This paper considers the extent to which confounding effects of covariates, which are not controlled for by matching in the design, may influence the sample size necessary for case‐control studies. The quantitative calculations are performed for an age‐matched case‐control study on lung cancer and air pollution, and are based on different evaluation methods. For illustrative purposes attention is confined to a dichotomous risk factor and a single dichotomous covariate. By using the numerical values of a pilot study investigating lung cancer and air pollution, it turns out that the sample size required for detecting a relative risk as close as 1.15 to 1 is only slightly influenced by the strength of the association between confounder and risk factor for reasonable variations around our empirical values. On the other hand, sample size considerably increases with increasing relative risk of a confounder even when the association remains small. The sample size required for an individually matched analysis practically equals that for an age‐stratified analysis when the relative risk of the covariate is one. With a relative risk greater than one, however, the size for a matched analysis exceeds that for a stratified analysis and the ratio between them increases with increasing relative risk. Copyright © 1990 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:765 / 776
页数:12
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
Schlesselman J.J., Sample size requirements in cohort and case‐control studies of disease, American Journal of Epidemiology, 99, pp. 381-384, (1974)
[2]  
Schlesselman J.J., Case‐Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis, (1982)
[3]  
Gail M.H., The determination of sample size for trials involving several independent 2 × 2 tables, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 26, pp. 669-673, (1973)
[4]  
Munoz A., Rosner B., Power and sample size for a collection of 2 × 2 tables, Biometrics, 40, pp. 995-1004, (1984)
[5]  
Parker R.A., Bregman D.J., Sample size for individually matched case‐control studies, Biometrics, 42, pp. 919-926, (1986)
[6]  
Fleiss J.L., (1988)
[7]  
Breslow N.E., Day N.E., Statistical Methods in Cancer Research Volumel: The Analysis of Case‐Control Studies, (1982)
[8]  
Prentice R.L., Pyke R., Logistic disease incidence models and case‐control studies, Biometrika, 66, pp. 403-411, (1979)
[9]  
Doll R., Peto R., The causes of cancer — quantitative estimates of avoidable risks in the United States today, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66, pp. 1191-1308, (1981)
[10]  
Smith P.G., Day N.E., The design of case‐control studies: the influence of confounding and interaction effects, International Journal of Epidemiology, 13, pp. 356-365, (1984)