ArticleClinical epidemiology2012
Matched case-control studies: a review of reported statistical methodology.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Approaches to measure paediatric chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: a systematic review.The Lancet. Haematology · 2020Pooled it
- How Often Do Orthopaedic Matched Case-Control Studies Use Matched Methods? A Review of Methodological Quality.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Pooled it
- Pro-inflammatory Monocyte Phenotype and Cell-Specific Steroid Signaling Alterations in Unmedicated Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Trial
- Impact of large-scale distribution and subsequent use of free nicotine patches on primary care physician interaction.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- Trial
- The impact on patient health and service outcomes of introducing nurse consultants: a historically matched controlled study.BMC health services research · 2013Trial
- Neuromuscular junction failure in sarcopenia is linked to NaV1.4 loss and reversed by ClC-1 inhibition.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Article
- Predictors of Transplant Regret: A Case-Control Study Nested Within a Prospective Cohort of HSCT Recipients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- The Insight Study: A Case-Control Psychological Autopsy Study Examining Factors Associated With Suicide in Middle-Aged People.Suicide & life-threatening behavior · 2025Article
- Effect of Relocation, Social Housing Changes, and Diarrhea Status on Microbiome Composition of Juvenile Cynomolgus Macaques (Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Myocardial Priority Promotes Cardiovascular Recovery for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Combined with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Aortic Arch Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Machine learning polysomnographically-derived electroencephalography biomarkers predictive of epworth sleepiness scale.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 alters neural synchronies in the brain with more severe effects in younger individuals.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Association of APOE ɛ4 and Plasma p-tau181 with Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease and Longitudinal Change in Hippocampus Function.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
- Corneal Biomechanics Differences Between Chinese and Caucasian Healthy Subjects.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Del Nido versus HTK cardioplegia for myocardial protection during adult complex valve surgery: a retrospective study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Increased Risk of Perioperative Complications in Dialysis Patients Following Rotator Cuff Repairs and Knee Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of Hypothyroidism in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion.Cureus · 2021Article
- Recommendations for Statistical Reporting in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Special Report From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCase-control studies are a common and efficient means of studying rare diseases or illnesses with long latency periods. Matching of cases and controls is frequently employed to control the effects of known potential confounding variables. The analysis of matched data requires specific statistical methods.
methodsThe objective of this study was to determine the proportion of published, peer-reviewed matched case-control studies that used statistical methods appropriate for matched data. Using a comprehensive set of search criteria we identified 37 matched case-control studies for detailed analysis.
resultsAmong these 37 articles, only 16 studies were analyzed with proper statistical techniques (43%). Studies that were properly analyzed were more likely to have included case patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease compared to those that did not use proper statistics (10/16 or 63%, versus 5/21 or 24%, P = 0.02). They were also more likely to have matched multiple controls for each case (14/16 or 88%, versus 13/21 or 62%, P = 0.08). In addition, studies with properly analyzed data were more likely to have been published in a journal with an impact factor listed in the top 100 according to the Journal Citation Reports index (12/16 or 69%, versus 1/21 or 5%, P ≤ 0.0001).
conclusionThe findings of this study raise concern that the majority of matched case-control studies report results that are derived from improper statistical analyses. This may lead to errors in estimating the relationship between a disease and exposure, as well as the incorrect adaptation of emerging medical literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.