Multiple Reference Groups in Case-Referent Studies

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)


A case-referent study compares the frequency or intensity of exposure to the treatment among cases and among referents or noncases who are free of the disease; see §3.3. If referents or noncases are selected from several different sources, then the study has several distinct referent groups.


Referent Group Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis Introduce Selection Bias Hide Bias Reye Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breslow, N. and Day, N. (1980) The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Volume 1 of Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  2. Cole, P. (1979) The evolving case-control study. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 32, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collaborative Group for the Study of Stroke in Young Women (1973) Oral contraception and increased risk of cerebral ischemia or thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 288, 871–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornfield, J. (1951) A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data: Applications to cancer of the lung, breast and cervix. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 11, 1269–1275.Google Scholar
  5. Fairweather, W. (1987) Comparing proportion exposed in case-control studies using several control groups. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gastwirth, J. (1988) Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy. New York: Academic.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Gutensohn, N., Li, F., Johnson, R., and Cole, P. (1975) Hodgkin’s disease, tonsillectomy and family size. New England Journal of Medicine, 292, 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halsey, N., Modlin, J., Jabbour, J., Dubey, L., Eddins, D., and Ludwig, D. (1980) Risk factors in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: A casecontrol study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 111, 415–424.Google Scholar
  9. Herbst, A., Ulfelder, H., and Poskanzer, D. (1971) Adenocarcinoma of the vagina: Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. New England Journal of Medicine, 284, 878–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holland, P. and Rubin, D. (1988) Causal inference in retrospective studies. Evaluation Review, 12, 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hurwitz, E. (1989) Reye’s syndrome. Epidemiologic Reviews, 11, 249–253.Google Scholar
  12. Hurwitz, E. S., Barrett, M. J., Bregman, D., Gunn, W. J., Pinsky, P., Schonberger, L. B., Drage, J. S., Kaslow, R. A., Burlington, D. B., and Quirman, G. V. (1985) Public health service study on Reye’s syndrome and medications. New England Journal of Medicine, 313, 14, 849–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelsey, J., Thompson, W., and Evans, A. (1986) Methods in Observational Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., and Morgenstern, H. (1982) Epidemiologic Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  15. Kreiger, N., Kelsey, J., Holford, T., and O’Connor, T. (1982) An epidemiologic study of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 116, 141–148.Google Scholar
  16. Liang, K. and Stewart, W. (1987) Polychotomous logistic regression methods for matched case-control studies with multiple case or control groups. American Journal of Epidemiology, 125, 720–730.Google Scholar
  17. Lilienfeld, A., Chang, L., Thomas, D., and Levin, M. (1976) Rauwolfia derivatives and breast cancer. Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, 139, 41–50.Google Scholar
  18. Lilienfeld, A. and Lilienfeld, D. (1980) Foundations of Epidemiology (second edition) . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. MacMahon, B. and Pugh, T. (1970) Epidemiology: Principles and Methods. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  20. Mantel, N. (1973) Synthetic retrospective studies and related topics. Biometrics, 29, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mantel, N. and Haenszel, W. (1959) Statistical aspects of retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719 – 748.Google Scholar
  22. Miettinen, O. (1985a) Theoretical Epidemiology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Miettinen, O. (1985b) The “case-control” study: Valid selection of subjects (with discussion) Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitrinovic, D. S. (1970) Analytic Inequalities. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Prentice, R. and Breslow, N. (1978) Retrospective studies and failure time models. Biometrika, 65, 153–158.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1987) The role of a second control group in an observational study (with Discussion) . Statistical Science, 2, 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1991) Sensitivity analysis for matched case-control studies. Biometrics, 47, 87–100.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothman, K. (1986) Modern Epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  29. Rothman, K. and Greenland, S. (1998) Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
  30. Schlesselman, J. (1982) Case-Control Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Weiss, N. (1994) Should we consider a subject’s knowledge of the etiologic hypothesis in the analysis of case-control studies? American Journal of Epidemiology, 139, 247–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Statistics, The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations