IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p10296-d646835.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Peyman Adibi

    (Isfahan Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 8174673461, Iran)

  • Shahram Agah

    (Colorectal Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1445613131, Iran)

  • Hassan Doosti

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia)

  • Awat Feizi

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 8174673461, Iran)

Abstract

Background: Effect sizes are the most useful quantities for communicating the practical significance of results and helping to facilitate cumulative science. We hypothesize that the selection of the best-fitted controls can significantly affect the estimated effect sizes in case–control studies. Therefore, we decided to exemplify and clarify this effect on effect size using a large data set. The objective of this study was to investigate the association among variables in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) and mental health problems, common ailments that reduce the quality of life of a large proportion of the community worldwide. Method: In this methodological study, we constitute case and control groups in our study framework using the Epidemiology of Psychological, Alimentary Health and Nutrition (SEPAHAN) dataset of 4763 participants. We devised four definitions for control in this extensive database of FGID patients and analyzed the effect of these definitions on the odds ratio (OR): 1. conventional control: without target disorder/syndrome (sample size 4040); 2. without any positive criteria: criterion-free control (sample size 1053); 3. syndrome-free control: without any disorder/syndrome (sample size 847); 4. symptom-free control: without any symptoms (sample size 204). We considered a fixed case group that included 723 patients with a Rome III-based definition of functional dyspepsia. Psychological distress, anxiety, and depression were considered as dependent variables in the analysis. Logistic regression was used for association analysis, and the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for OR were reported as the effect size. Results: The estimated ORs indicate that the strength of the association in the first case–control group is the lowest, and the fourth case–control group, including controls with completely asymptomatic people, is the highest. Ascending effect sizes were obtained in the conventional, criterion-free, syndrome-free, and symptom-free control groups. These results are consistent for all three psychological disorders, psychological distress, anxiety, and depression. Conclusions: This study shows that a precise definition of the control is mandatory in every case–control study and affects the estimated effect size. In clinical settings, the selection of symptomatic controls using the conventional definition could significantly diminish the effect size.

Suggested Citation

  • Peyman Adibi & Shahram Agah & Hassan Doosti & Awat Feizi, 2021. "Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10296-:d:646835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10296/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10296/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10296-:d:646835. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.