ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2013
Comparison of address-based sampling and random-digit dialing methods for recruiting young men as controls in a case-control study of testicular cancer susceptibility.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Dietary Diversity Score Associated With a Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer: A Large Population-Based Incident Case-Control Study.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- A nationwide mobile phone survey for tobacco use in Tanzania: Sample quality and representativeness compared to a household survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Waterpipe and cigarette smoking and drug and alcohol consumption, and the risk of primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A population-based case-control study.Current journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Medical history risk factors in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A case-control study.Current journal of neurology · 2021Article
- Can respondent driven sampling be used to recruit new mothers? A mixed methods study in metropolitan Washington DC.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Survey of the Knowledge of and Testing Rate for Hepatitis C in the General Population in South Korea.Gut and liver · 2020Article
- Public opinion about the health care system in Armenia: findings from a cross-sectional telephone survey.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Article
- Sexting, Web-Based Risks, and Safety in Two Representative National Samples of Young Australians: Prevalence, Perspectives, and Predictors.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- Estimation of the marginal effect of regular drug use on multiple sclerosis in the Iranian population.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Random-digit dialing (RDD) using landline telephone numbers is the historical gold standard for control recruitment in population-based epidemiologic research. However, increasing cell-phone usage and diminishing response rates suggest that the effectiveness of RDD in recruiting a random sample of the general population, particularly for younger target populations, is decreasing. In this study, we compared landline RDD with alternative methods of control recruitment, including RDD using cell-phone numbers and address-based sampling (ABS), to recruit primarily white men aged 18-55 years into a study of testicular cancer susceptibility conducted in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, metropolitan area between 2009 and 2012. With few exceptions, eligible and enrolled controls recruited by means of RDD and ABS were similar with regard to characteristics for which data were collected on the screening survey. While we find ABS to be a comparably effective method of recruiting young males compared with landline RDD, we acknowledge the potential impact that selection bias may have had on our results because of poor overall response rates, which ranged from 11.4% for landline RDD to 1.7% for ABS.
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.