Article thumbnail

Experience with multiple control groups in a large population-based case–control study on genetic and environmental risk factors

By E. R. Pomp, K. J. Van Stralen, S. Le Cessie, J. P. Vandenbroucke, F. R. Rosendaal and C. J. M. Doggen


We discuss the analytic and practical considerations in a large case–control study that had two control groups; the first control group consisting of partners of patients and the second obtained by random digit dialling (RDD). As an example of the evaluation of a general lifestyle factor, we present body mass index (BMI). Both control groups had lower BMIs than the patients. The distribution in the partner controls was closer to that of the patients, likely due to similar lifestyles. A statistical approach was used to pool the results of both analyses, wherein partners were analyzed with a matched analysis, while RDDs were analyzed without matching. Even with a matched analysis, the odds ratio with partner controls remained closer to unity than with RDD controls, which is probably due to unmeasured confounders in the comparison with the random controls as well as intermediary factors. However, when studying injuries as a risk factor, the odds ratio remained higher with partner control subjects than with RRD control subjects, even after taking the matching into account. Finally we used factor V Leiden as an example of a genetic risk factor. The frequencies of factor V Leiden were identical in both control groups, indicating that for the analyses of this genetic risk factor the two control groups could be combined in a single unmatched analysis. In conclusion, the effect measures with the two control groups were in the same direction, and of the same order of magnitude. Moreover, it was not always the same control group that produced the higher or lower estimates, and a matched analysis did not remedy the differences. Our experience with the intricacies of dealing with two control groups may be useful to others when thinking about an optimal research design or the best statistical approach

Topics: Methods
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles


  1. Combining matched and unmatched control groups in case-control studies.
  2. (2010). Design of observational studies. Springer series in statistics.
  3. (2009). E-communications Household Survey ext_studies/ecomm_household_study/eb_jul06_main_report_en. pdf.
  4. (1983). Hospital or population control subjects? An unanswered question. J Chron Dis.
  5. Hylckama Vlieg A, le Cessie S, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP. Thrombosis after travel: reply to a Perspective. 3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030307.
  6. (2008). Minor injuries of the leg increase the risk of venous thrombosis five fold. Arch Intern Med.
  7. (1998). Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven publishers;
  8. (1997). Occupational exposure to machining fluids and laryngeal cancer risk: contrasting results using two separate control groups.
  9. (2009). of Statistics. The Netherlands. Reported health and lifestyle
  10. prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis.
  11. Random digit dialing in selecting a population-based control group.
  12. Risk of venous thrombosis: obesity and its joint effect with oral contraceptive use and prothrombotic mutations.
  13. Sampling methods for Random Digit Dialing.
  14. (1992). Selection of control subjects in case-control studies II. Types of control subjects.
  15. (1985). The ‘‘case-control’’ study: valid selection of subjects.
  16. The case-only odds ratio as a causal parameter.
  17. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism
  18. the postpartum period and prothrombotic defects: risk of venous thrombosis in the MEGA study.
  19. (2006). Thrombosis after travel. PLoS Med.
  20. Venous thrombosis: a multicausal disease.