Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jan 6;5(1):Article 1.
doi: 10.2202/1557-4679.1127.

Why match? Investigating matched case-control study designs with causal effect estimation

Sherri Rose  1 , Mark J van der Laan
Affiliations

Why match? Investigating matched case-control study designs with causal effect estimation

Sherri Rose et al. Int J Biostat. .

Abstract

Matched case-control study designs are commonly implemented in the field of public health. While matching is intended to eliminate confounding, the main potential benefit of matching in case-control studies is a gain in efficiency. Methods for analyzing matched case-control studies have focused on utilizing conditional logistic regression models that provide conditional and not causal estimates of the odds ratio. This article investigates the use of case-control weighted targeted maximum likelihood estimation to obtain marginal causal effects in matched case-control study designs. We compare the use of case-control weighted targeted maximum likelihood estimation in matched and unmatched designs in an effort to explore which design yields the most information about the marginal causal effect. The procedures require knowledge of certain prevalence probabilities and were previously described by van der Laan (2008). In many practical situations where a causal effect is the parameter of interest, researchers may be better served using an unmatched design.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Simulated Covariates
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Simulated Covariates: Probabilities. Z represents the remaining eight non-matching covariates.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Simulation 1 – Bias for 1:1 Matching. CCD I is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design I, CCD II is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design II with q̄0(M) weighting, and CCD II (w) is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design II with (1 – q0) weighting.
Figure 4:
Figure 4:
Simulation 1 – Bias for 1:2 Matching. CCD I is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design I, CCD II is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design II with q̄0(M) weighting, and CCD II (w) is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design II with (1 – q0) weighting.
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Simulation 2 – Bias. CCD I is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design I and CCD II is CCW T-MLE for Case-Control Design II.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bembom O, Peterson ML, Rhee S-Y, Fessel WJ, Sinisi SE, Shafer RW, van der Laan MJ. Biomarker discovery using targeted maximum likelihood estimation: Application to the treatment of antiretroviral resistant hiv infection. Technical Report 221, Division of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley. 2007 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benichou J, Wacholder S. A comparison of three approaches to estimate exposuore-specific incidence rates from population-based case-control data. Statistics in Medicine. 1994;13:651–661. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780130526. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Billewicz WZ. The efficiency of matched samples: An empirical investigation. Biometrics. 1965;21(3):623–644. doi: 10.2307/2528546. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Volume 1 – The analysis of case-control studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon: 1980. - PubMed
    1. Breslow NE, Day NE, Halvorsen KT, Prentice RL, Sabal C. Estimation of multiple relative risk functions in matched case-control studies. Am J Epid. 1978;108(4):299–307. - PubMed

Publication types