4.2 Article

Case-crossover design: Basic essentials and applications

期刊

GACETA SANITARIA
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 161-165

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2008.10.010

关键词

Epidemiologic methods; Logistic models; Cross-over studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Case-crossover analysis is all observational epidemiological design that was proposed by Maclure in 1991 to assess whether a given intermittent or unusual exposure may have triggered all immediate short-term, acute event. The present article outlines the basics of case-crossover designs, as well as their applications and limitations. The case-crossover design is based on exclusively selecting case subjects. To calculate relative risk, exposure during the period of time prior to the event (case period) is compared against the same subject's exposure during one or more control periods. This method is only appropriate when the exposures are transient in time and have acute short-term effects. For exposures in which there is no trend, a unidirectional approach is the most frequent and consists of selecting one or more control periods prior to the case period. When the exposure displays a time trend (e.g., air pollution), a unidirectional approach will yield biased estimates, and therefore bidirectional case-crossover designs are used, which select control time intervals preceding and Subsequent to that of the event. The case-crossover design is being increasingly used across a wide range of fields, including factors triggering traffic, occupational and domestic accidents and acute myocardial infarction, and those involved in air Pollution and health and pharmacoepidemiology, among others. Insofar as data-analysis is concerned, case-crossover designs can generally be regarded as matched case-control Studies and consequently conditional logistic regression call be applied. Lastly, this study analyzes practical examples of distinct applications of the case-crossover design. (C) 2008 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据