Case-control studies

  • Sjoerd Houwing
  • René Mathijssen
  • Karel A. Brookhuis


The case-control design is very suitable when dealing with rare diseases and when many factors for the disease under study need to be evaluated, as is the case in determining the risk of driving under the influence of drugs. However, the methodology is hard to implement and there are many sources of potential bias that could affect the validity of the study results. Case-control studies are therefore not commonly used as a method to assess the risk of driving under the influence of psychoactive substances other than alcohol.

The few studies that have been conducted vary in study design, which makes it very hard to compare their outcomes. In 2006 a consensus meeting was organised by the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS) to develop standards for future research. These recommendations for standardized research include legal/ethical issues, subject and study design issues, and core data parameters.


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. 1.
    Berghaus G, Ramaekers JG, Drummer OH (2007) Demands on scientific studies in different fields of forensic medicine and forensic sciences: Traffic medicine-impaired driver: Alcohol, drugs, diseases. Forensic Science International 165: 233–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borkenstein RF, Crowther RF, Shumate WB, Ziel WB, Zylman R (1974) The role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents (the Grand Rapids Study). Blutalkohol 112 nd editionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shadis WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs: for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howe GR, Choi BCK (1983) Methodological issues in Case-Control Studies: Validity and Power of Various Design/Analysis Strategies. International Journal of epidemiology 12: 238–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cornfield J (1951) A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data. Applications to cancer of the lung, breast and cervix. Journal National Cancer Institute 11: 1269–1275Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haworth N, Vulcan P, Bowland L, Pronk N (1997) Estimation of risk factors for fatal single vehicle crashes. Monash University Accident Research Centre, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jamrozik KD, English DR (1991) Case-control studies. The medical journal of Australia 155: 167–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mathijssen MPM, Houwing S (2005) The prevalence and relative risk of drink and drug driving in the Netherlands: a case-control study in the Tilburg police district. SWOV, LeidschendamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlesselman JJ (1982) Case-Control Studies. Monographs in epidemiology and biostatics. Oxford University press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT, Mandel JS (1992) Selection of Controls in Case-Control Studies. American Journal of Epidemiology: 1019–1050Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beirness DJ, Simpson HM, Williams AF (2006) Role of Cannabis and Benzodiazepines in Motor Vehicle Crashes. Transportation Research Circular E-C096: Drugs and Traffic Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Assum T (2005) The prevalence and relative risk of drink and drug driving in Norway. Institute of Transport Economics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buttress SC, Sexton B, Tunbridge RJ, Oliver J (2004) Project IMMORTAL. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baldock MRJ (2007) Review of the literature on cannabis and crash risk. The University of Adelaide, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mura P, Kintz P, Ludes B, Gaulier JM, Marquet P (2003) Comparison of the prevalence alcohol, cannabis and other drugs between 900 injured drivers and 900 control subjects: results of a French collaborative study. Forensic Science International 133: 79–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brault M, Dussault C, Bouchard J, Lemire AM (2004) The contribution of alcohol and other drugs among fatally injured drivers in Quebec: final results.: 17th ICADTS conference, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blows S, Ivers RQ, Connor J, Ameratunga S, Woodward M, Norton R (2004) Marijuana use and car crash injury. Addiction 100: 605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Assum T, Frison G, Hels T, Houwing S, Mathijssen R (2007) Guidelines for roadside surveys. Internal document DRUID WP2 EpidemiologyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raes E, Lillsunde P, Gunnar T, Laloup M, Christophersen A, Moeller M, Hammer K, Verstraete A (to be published) Relationship between oral fluid and blood concentrations of drugs of abuse in drivers suspected of DUID.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhéuser Verlag/Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sjoerd Houwing
    • 1
  • René Mathijssen
    • 1
  • Karel A. Brookhuis
    • 2
  1. 1.SWOV Institute for Road Safety ResearchLeidschendamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.RUG University of Groningen Experimental and Work PsychologyGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations