Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Li, X.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Li, X.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159:603-610.
Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Comparison of the Missing-Indicator Method and Conditional Logistic Regression in 1:m Matched Case-Control Studies with Missing Exposure Values

Xianbin Li1 , Xiaoyan Song2 and Ronald H. Gray1

1 Department of Population and Family Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
2 Department of Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD.

The missing-indicator method and conditional logistic regression have been recommended as alternative approaches for data analysis in matched case-control studies with missing exposure values. The authors evaluated the performance of the two methods using Monte Carlo simulation. Data were generated from a 1:m matched design based on McNemar’s 2 x 2 tables with four scenarios for missing values: completely-at-random, case-dependent, exposure-dependent, and case/exposure-dependent. In their analysis, the authors used conditional logistic regression for complete pairs and the missing-indicator method for all pairs. For 1:1 matched studies, given no confounding between exposure and disease, the two methods yielded unbiased estimates. Otherwise, conditional logistic regression produced unbiased estimates with empirical confidence interval coverage similar to nominal coverage under the first three missing-value scenarios, whereas the missing-indicator method produced slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. An increased number of matched controls was associated with slightly more bias and lower confidence interval coverage. Under the case/exposure-dependent missing-value scenario, neither method performed satisfactorily; this indicates the need for more sophisticated statistical methods for handling such missing values. Overall, compared with the missing-indicator method, conditional logistic regression provided a slight advantage in terms of bias and coverage probability, at the cost of slightly reduced statistical power and efficiency.

case-control studies; epidemiologic methods; logistic models; missing data; regression analysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. Suissa
Immeasurable Time Bias in Observational Studies of Drug Effects on Mortality
Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2008; 168(3): 329 - 335.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.