Guidelines for reading case-control studies

Michael J Lichtenstein, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Peter C. Elwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

117 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80-90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75-80% considered information on methods of data collection, "blinding" of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential. Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)893-903
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Chronic Diseases
Volume40
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - 1987
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Case-Control Studies
Reading
Guidelines
Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Interviews
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Case-control study
  • Critical appraisal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Guidelines for reading case-control studies. / Lichtenstein, Michael J; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Elwood, Peter C.

In: Journal of Chronic Diseases, Vol. 40, No. 9, 1987, p. 893-903.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lichtenstein, Michael J ; Mulrow, Cynthia D. ; Elwood, Peter C. / Guidelines for reading case-control studies. In: Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1987 ; Vol. 40, No. 9. pp. 893-903.
@article{e6a5ba2132b44701952ab1deb3a25a3f,
title = "Guidelines for reading case-control studies",
abstract = "To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80-90{\%} considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75-80{\%} considered information on methods of data collection, {"}blinding{"} of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70{\%} considered a description of the analytic methods and 57{\%} the presentation of confidence limits essential. Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88{\%} of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.",
keywords = "Case-control study, Critical appraisal",
author = "Lichtenstein, {Michael J} and Mulrow, {Cynthia D.} and Elwood, {Peter C.}",
year = "1987",
doi = "10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "893--903",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidelines for reading case-control studies

AU - Lichtenstein, Michael J

AU - Mulrow, Cynthia D.

AU - Elwood, Peter C.

PY - 1987

Y1 - 1987

N2 - To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80-90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75-80% considered information on methods of data collection, "blinding" of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential. Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.

AB - To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80-90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75-80% considered information on methods of data collection, "blinding" of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential. Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.

KW - Case-control study

KW - Critical appraisal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023178583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023178583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1

DO - 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 3597690

AN - SCOPUS:0023178583

VL - 40

SP - 893

EP - 903

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 9

ER -