Michael J. Lichtenstein , Cynthia D. Mulrow , Peter C. Elwood
{"title":"Guidelines for reading case-control studies","authors":"Michael J. Lichtenstein , Cynthia D. Mulrow , Peter C. Elwood","doi":"10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80–90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75–80% considered information on methods of data collection, “blinding” of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential.</p><p>Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15427,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chronic diseases","volume":"40 9","pages":"Pages 893-903"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90190-1","citationCount":"110","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chronic diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968187901901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 110
Abstract
To develop guidelines for evaluation of case-control reports a survey of 37 experts in the performance and evaluation of case-control studies was conducted. A majority of the respondents listed 20 items as essential; 80–90% considered identification of case and control sources, exclusion criteria, and response rate as essential; 75–80% considered information on methods of data collection, “blinding” of interviewers, investigation of bias, and methods of dealing with confounding variables essential; 70% considered a description of the analytic methods and 57% the presentation of confidence limits essential.
Twenty items judged essential by more than half the survey participants were used as guidelines to appraise 48 case-control studies published in 1984. In 88% of these studies information was lacking on at least one of the items. The proposed guidelines serve as a framework for readers to effectively assess the validity of a case-control report.