Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30143948›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2018

Individually-matched etiologic studies: classical estimators made new again.

James A Hanley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

James A HanleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A2, Canada. james.hanley@mcgill.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With greater access to regression-based methods for confounder control, the etiologic study with individual matching, analyzed by classical (calculator) methods, lost favor in recent decades. This design was costly, and the data sometimes mis-analyzed. Now, with Big Data, individual matching becomes an economical option. To many, however, conditional logistic regression, commonly used to estimate the incidence density ratio parameter, is somewhat of a black box whose output is not easily checked. An epidemiologist-statistician pair recently proposed a new estimator that is easily applied to data from individually-matched series with a 2:1 ratio (and no other confounding variables) using just a hand calculator or spreadsheet. Surprisingly-or possibly not-they overlooked classical estimators developed in earlier decades. This prompts me to re-introduce some of these, to highlight their considerable flexibility and ease of use, and to update them. Nowadays, for any matching ratio (M:1), the Maximum Likelihood result can be easily computed from data gathered under the matched design in two different ways, each using just the summary data. One is via any binomial regression program that allows offsets, applied to just M 'rows' of data. The other is by hand! The aim of this note is not to save on computation; instead, it is to make connections between classical and regression-based methods, to promote terminology that reflects the concepts and structure of the etiologic study, and to focus attention on what parameter is being estimated.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalProbabilityConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansLogistic ModelsRegression AnalysisBreslow and DayClaytonMantel and HaenszelMiettinenNelder and WedderburnWoolf

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.