IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v76y2022i2p117-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Case-Control Approach Can be More Powerful for Matched Pair Observational Studies When the Outcome is Rare

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Wang
  • Dylan S. Small
  • Guy Cafri
  • Elizabeth W. Paxton

Abstract

In an observational study, to investigate the treatment effect, one common strategy is to match the control subjects to the treated subjects. The outcomes between the two groups are then compared after the TC (treatment-control) match. However, when the outcome is rare, detection of an outcome difference can be challenging. An alternative approach is to compare the treatment or exposure discrepancy after matching subjects with the outcome (cases) to subjects without the outcome (referents). Throughout the article, we follow the tradition to call this the matched “case-control” approach instead of the matched “case-referent” approach. We reserve “control” to mean not taking the treatment, and the abbreviation TC and CC (case-control) when possible confusion may arise. We derive conditions when the matched CC approach has more power for testing the treatment effect and examine its empirical performance in simulations and in our data example. We also show that the CC approach gives better match quality in our study of the effect of long vs. short stay in the hospital after joint surgery.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Wang & Dylan S. Small & Guy Cafri & Elizabeth W. Paxton, 2022. "The Case-Control Approach Can be More Powerful for Matched Pair Observational Studies When the Outcome is Rare," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 117-123, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:2:p:117-123
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2021.1972835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2021.1972835
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2021.1972835?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:2:p:117-123. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    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.