Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:43-50
Copyright © 2003 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES |
Matched Cohort Methods for Injury Research
1 Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
2 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
3 Departments of Epidemiology and Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Received for publication July 1, 2002; accepted for publication January 30, 2003.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
This article reviews the design and analysis of matched cohort studies of injuries where exposed study subjects are matched to others not exposed. We focus on the situation in which data are available for the matched groups with at least one member who had the study outcome, but data are absent or incomplete for matched groups that have no members with the outcome.
When matching is done in a case-control study, those with the outcome are matched to those without the outcome on certain confounder measures; this distorts the exposure status of the controls to be like that of the cases in regard to the matching variables (and perhaps other variables as well) (1). As a consequence, the selected controls may not represent the exposure experience of the entire population from which the cases were derived. Therefore, matching is a source of selection bias in a case-control study.
|
USEFUL FEATURES OF MATCHED COHORT STUDIES |
|---|
|
ANALYTICAL METHODS |
|---|
The crude risk ratio
Advantages. Disadvantages. Mantel-Haenszel method
Advantages. Disadvantages. Double-pair method
Advantages. Disadvantages. Estimating equations
Advantages. Disadvantages. Conditional Poisson regression
Advantages. Disadvantages. Cox proportional hazards regression
Advantages. Disadvantages. Conditional logistic regression
Advantages. Disadvantages.
|
A POTENTIAL LIMITATION |
|---|
|
A POSSIBLE STRENGTH |
|---|
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Correspondence to Dr. Peter Cummings, 1524 Bear Creek Drive, Bishop, CA 93514 (email: peterc@u.washington.edu).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Cummings Propensity Scores Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, August 1, 2008; 162(8): 734 - 737. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. R. Braver, J. A. Kufera, M. T. Alexander, M. Scerbo, K. Volpini, and J. P. Lloyd Using Head-on Collisions to Compare Risk of Driver Death by Frontal Air Bag Generation: A Matched-Pair Cohort Study Am. J. Epidemiol., March 1, 2008; 167(5): 546 - 552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Cummings Hip Protectors and Hip Fracture JAMA, November 14, 2007; 298(18): 2139 - 2139. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Zhu, P. Cummings, H. Chu, and L. J Cook Association of rear seat safety belt use with death in a traffic crash: a matched cohort study Inj. Prev., June 1, 2007; 13(3): 183 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Y. Zou One relative risk versus two odds ratios: implications for meta-analyses involving paired and unpaired binary data Clinical Trials, February 1, 2007; 4(1): 25 - 31. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cummings Effects of differences between peer reviewers suggested by authors and by editors. JAMA, September 13, 2006; 296(10): 1231 - 1231. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Schroter, L. Tite, A. Hutchings, and N. Black Effects of Differences Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors and by Editors--Reply JAMA, September 13, 2006; 296(10): 1231 - 1232. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. M. Olson, P. Cummings, and F. P. Rivara Association of First- and Second-Generation Air Bags with Front Occupant Death in Car Crashes: A Matched Cohort Study Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2006; 164(2): 161 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K M Smith and P Cummings Passenger seating position and the risk of passenger death in traffic crashes: a matched cohort study. Inj. Prev., April 1, 2006; 12(2): 83 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. C. Gulliford, J. Charlton, and R. Latinovic Increased Utilization of Primary Care 5 Years Before Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes: A matched cohort study Diabetes Care, January 1, 2005; 28(1): 47 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Greenland Model-based Estimation of Relative Risks and Other Epidemiologic Measures in Studies of Common Outcomes and in Case-Control Studies Am. J. Epidemiol., August 15, 2004; 160(4): 301 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "MATCHED COHORT METHODS FOR INJURY RESEARCH" Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2004; 160(3): 300 - 300. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cummings and F. P. Rivara Car Occupant Death According to the Restraint Use of Other Occupants: A Matched Cohort Study JAMA, January 21, 2004; 291(3): 343 - 349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cummings RE: "ESTIMATING THE RELATIVE RISK IN COHORT STUDIES AND CLINICAL TRIALS OF COMMON OUTCOMES" Am. J. Epidemiol., January 15, 2004; 159(2): 213 - 213. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. B. Thacker and E. J. MacKenzie Preface: The Role of the Epidemiologist in Injury Prevention and Control--An Unmet Challenge Epidemiol. Rev., August 1, 2003; 25(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. P. Rivara Introduction: The Scientific Basis for Injury Control Epidemiol. Rev., August 1, 2003; 25(1): 20 - 23. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|