ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Quantitative relationship of effect estimates from spouse and disease controls in case control study.
Article in Discover oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundDisease control (DC) and spouse control (SC) are commonly used in case control study. The exposure level of these two kinds of control may be different, especially in smoking status. However, few studies concentrate on the association of DC and SC. Based on this situation, this study aims to explore the quantitative relationship of Odds Ratio (OR) between DC ([Formula: see text]) and SC ([Formula: see text] for lung cancer.
methodsIn this study, the data of cases, DC and SC were collected from the National Retrospective Survey of Deaths, including one million deaths during 1986 to 1988. Referring to cross-walk model, four forms of model, stratified by urban/rural areas, genders and 5-year age categories, were established to explore the suitable one, for adjusting [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text].
resultsAfter matching, a total of 57,789 participants were collected. Accordingly, the smoking prevalence of case, SC and DC groups were 54.39%, 31.72%, 33.54%, respectively. In the urban areas, the total [Formula: see text] of males and females were higher than [Formula: see text], while the quantitative relation was the opposite in the rural areas. The [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] value gradually increases with the age group, reaching its maximum at 60–64 in urban area and 50–59 in rural area. After establishing the cross-walk model, in urban area, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were used for males and females, respectively. In rural area, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were used for males and females, respectively.
conclusions[Formula: see text] were commonly larger than [Formula: see text] in urban areas, whereas the opposite quantitative relation was observed in rural areas. Any modeling of the relationship between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] is presented solely as a descriptive exercise for this historical dataset and should not be interpreted as a validated adjustment tool or a generally applicable method for translating effect estimates between control types. As an exploratory, proof-of-concept analysis, this study illustrates how effect estimates may vary across control definitions in case-control studies, highlighting a fundamental methodological caution.
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.