Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease

Clicks: 2
ID: 289136
1959
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #255 of 335 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 335 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The role and limitations of retrospective investigations of factors possibly associated with the occurrence of a disease are discussed and their relationship to forward-type studies emphasized. Examples of situations in which misleading associations could arise through the use of inappropriate control groups are presented. The possibility of misleading associations may be minimized by controlling or matching on factors which could produce such associations; the statistical analysis will then be modified. Statistical methodology is presented for analyzing retrospective study data, including chi-square measures of statistical significance of the observed association between the disease and the factor under study, and measures for interpreting the association in terms of an increased relative risk of disease. An extension of the chi-square test to the situation where data are subclassified by factors controlled in the analysis is given. A summary relative risk formula, R, is presented and discussed in connection with the problem of weighting the individual subcategory relative risks according to their importance or their precision. Alternative relative-risk formulas, R1, R2, R3, and R4, which require the calculation of subcategory-adjusted proportions of the study factor among diseased persons and controls for the computation of relative risks, are discussed. While these latter formulas may be useful in many instances, they may be biased or inconsistent and are not, in fact, averages of the relative risks observed in the separate subcategories. Only the relative-risk formula, R, of those presented, can be viewed as such an average. The relationship of the matched-sample method to the sub-classification approach is indicated. The statistical methodology presented is illustrated with examples from a study of women with epidermoid and undifferentiated pulmonary carcinoma.
Reference Key
openalex_W2150000105 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Nathan Mantel, William Haenszel
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 1959
DOI
10.1093/jnci/22.4.719
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/22.4.719
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.