Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23721229›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013

Rethinking sources of representative controls for the conduct of case-control studies in minority populations.

Elisa V Bandera, Urmila Chandran, Gary Zirpoli, Susan E McCann, Gregory Ciupak, Christine B Ambrosone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Validated Risk Prediction Model for Breast Cancer in US Black Women.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Genetic Variants inFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Epidemiology of Basal-like and Luminal Breast Cancers among Black Women in the AMBER Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Article
  16. FOXA1 Protein Expression in ERCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elisa V BanderaThe Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. elisa.bandera@umdnj.edu
Urmila Chandran
Gary Zirpoli
Susan E McCann
Gregory Ciupak
Christine B Ambrosone

Funding

TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROFILINGP30CA072720 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI Chang S Chan · 1997 to 2026
$94.5M
Reproduction, Lactation and Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer SubtypesP01CA151135 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI AMBROSONE, CHRISTINE B., OLSHAN, ANDREW · 2011 to 2017
$18.1M
NEW JERSEY CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003931 · DP · NEW JERSEY STATE DEPT/HEALTH/SENIOR SRVS · PI RODRIQUEZ, GLORIA · 2012 to 2014
$11.9M
Race &Risk Factors for Early/Aggressive Breast CancerR01CA100598 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI AMBROSONE, CHRISTINE B. · 2004 to 2008
$4.8M
Obesity in ovarian cancer prognosisK22CA138563 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI BANDERA, ELISA V · 2010 to 2012
$605k
NCCDPHP CDC HHS 1US58DP003931-01NCI NIH HHS K22 CA138563NCI NIH HHS N01PC-2010-00027NCI NIH HHS P01 CA151135NCI NIH HHS P30 CA072720NCI NIH HHS P30CA072720NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruitment of controls remains a challenge in case-control studies and particularly in studies involving minority populations.

methodsWe compared characteristics of controls recruited through random digit dialing (RDD) to those of community controls enrolled through churches, health events and other outreach sources among women of African ancestry (AA) participating in the Women's Circle of Health Study, a case-control study of breast cancer. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were also computed using unconditional logistic regression to evaluate the impact of including the community controls for selected variables relevant to breast cancer and for which there were significant differences in distribution between the two control groups.

resultsCompared to community controls (n=347), RDD controls (n=207) had more years of education and higher income, lower body mass index, were more likely to have private insurance, and less likely to be single. While the percentage of nulliparous women in the two groups was similar, community controls tended to have more children, have their first child at a younger age, and were less likely to breastfeed their children. Dietary intake was similar in the two groups. Compared to census data, the combination of RDD and community controls seems to be more representative of the general population than RDD controls alone. Furthermore, the inclusion of the community group had little impact on the magnitude of risk estimates for most variables, while enhancing statistical power.

conclusionsCommunity-based recruitment was found to be an efficient and feasible method to recruit AA controls.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesControl GroupsMinority GroupsAdultAgedBlack PeopleBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionResearch DesignRisk FactorsWhite People

Identifiers

PMID23721229
PMCPMC3681587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.