IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0191327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias due to differential participation in case-control studies and review of available approaches for adjustment

Author

Listed:
  • Annette Aigner
  • Ulrike Grittner
  • Heiko Becher

Abstract

Objectives: Low response rates in epidemiologic research potentially lead to the recruitment of a non-representative sample of controls in case-control studies. Problems in the unbiased estimation of odds ratios arise when characteristics causing the probability of participation are associated with exposure and outcome. This is a specific setting of selection bias and a realistic hazard in many case-control studies. This paper formally describes the problem and shows its potential extent, reviews existing approaches for bias adjustment applicable under certain conditions, compares and applies them. Methods: We focus on two scenarios: a characteristic C causing differential participation of controls is linked to the outcome through its association with risk factor E (scenario I), and C is additionally a genuine risk factor itself (scenario II). We further assume external data sources are available which provide an unbiased estimate of C in the underlying population. Given these scenarios, we (i) review available approaches and their performance in the setting of bias due to differential participation; (ii) describe two existing approaches to correct for the bias in both scenarios in more detail; (iii) present the magnitude of the resulting bias by simulation if the selection of a non-representative sample is ignored; and (iv) demonstrate the approaches’ application via data from a case-control study on stroke. Findings: The bias of the effect measure for variable E in scenario I and C in scenario II can be large and should therefore be adjusted for in any analysis. It is positively associated with the difference in response rates between groups of the characteristic causing differential participation, and inversely associated with the total response rate in the controls. Adjustment in a standard logistic regression framework is possible in both scenarios if the population distribution of the characteristic causing differential participation is known or can be approximated well.

Suggested Citation

  • Annette Aigner & Ulrike Grittner & Heiko Becher, 2018. "Bias due to differential participation in case-control studies and review of available approaches for adjustment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191327
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191327
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191327&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0191327?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0191327. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.