Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32364110›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2020

Optimising the case-crossover design for use in shared exposure settings.

T Braeye, N Hens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

T BraeyeDepartment of Public Health and Surveillance, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5637-4613
N HensInteruniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Data Science Institute, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1881-0637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With a case-crossover design, a case's exposure during a risk period is compared to the case's exposures at referent periods. The selection of referents for this self-controlled design is determined by the referent selection strategy (RSS). Previous research mainly focused on systematic bias associated with the RSS. We additionally focused on how RSS determines the number of referents per risk, sensitivity to overdispersion and time-varying confounding.We illustrated the consequences of different RSS using a simulation study informed by data on meteorological variables and Legionnaires' disease. By randomising the events and exposure time series, we explored statistical power associated with time-stratified and fixed bidirectional RSS and their susceptibility to systematic bias and confounding bias. In addition, we investigated how a high number of events on the same date (e.g. outbreaks) affected coefficient estimation. As illustrated by our work, referent selection alone can be insufficient to control for a time-varying confounding bias. In contrast to systematic bias, confounding bias can be hard to detect. We studied potential solutions: varying the model parameters and link-function, outlier-removal and aggregating the input-data over smaller areas. Our simulation study offers a framework for researchers looking to detect and to avoid bias in case-crossover studies.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureResearch DesignBiasCase-Control StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicCross-Over StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalEpidemiologic StudiesHumansLegionnaires' DiseaseRisk AssessmentWeatherCase-crossover studyconditional logistic regressionsimulation study

Identifiers

PMID32364110
PMCPMC7374809

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.