Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case–control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations

  • ESSAY
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Misconceptions about the impact of case–control matching remain common. We discuss several subtle problems associated with matched case–control studies that do not arise or are minor in matched cohort studies: (1) matching, even for non-confounders, can create selection bias; (2) matching distorts dose–response relations between matching variables and the outcome; (3) unbiased estimation requires accounting for the actual matching protocol as well as for any residual confounding effects; (4) for efficiency, identically matched groups should be collapsed; (5) matching may harm precision and power; (6) matched analyses may suffer from sparse-data bias, even when using basic sparse-data methods. These problems support advice to limit case–control matching to a few strong well-measured confounders, which would devolve to no matching if no such confounders are measured. On the positive side, odds ratio modification by matched variables can be assessed in matched case–control studies without further data, and when one knows either the distribution of the matching factors or their relation to the outcome in the source population, one can estimate and study patterns in absolute rates. Throughout, we emphasize distinctions from the more intuitive impacts of cohort matching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Design strategies to improve study accuracy. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 168–82.

  2. Greenland S. Partial and marginal matching in case-control studies. In: Moolgavkar SH, Prentice RL, editors. Modern statistical methods in chronic disease epidemiology. New York: Wiley; 1986. p. 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Case-control studies. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 111–27.

  4. Jewell NP. Statistics for epidemiology, chapter 5. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash T, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jewell NP. Statistics for epidemiology, chapter 8. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Greenland S, Mansournia MA. Limitations of individual causal models, causal graphs, and ignorability assumptions, as illustrated by random confounding and design unfaithfulness. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30:1101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mansournia MA, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Hernán MA. Biases in randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists. Epidemiology. 2017;28:54–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Suzuki E, Tsuda T, Mitsuhashi T, Mansournia MA, Yamamoto E. Errors in causal inference: an organizational schema for systematic error and random error. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26:788–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mansournia MA, Etminan M, Danaei G, Kaufman JS, Collins G. Handling time varying confounding in observational research. BMJ 2017;359:j4587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology, chapter 13. Boston: Little, Brown; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pearce N. Analysis of matched case-control studies. BMJ. 2016;352:i969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gharibzadeh S, Mohammad K, Rahimiforoushani A, Amouzegar A, Mansournia MA. Standardization as a tool for causal inference in medical research. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19:666–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greenland S, Lash TL. Bias analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 345–80.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hernán MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gail MH. Selection bias. In: Armitage P, Colton T, editors. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 4869–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mansournia MA, Hernán MA, Greenland S. Matched designs and causal diagrams. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:860–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith PG, Day NE. Matching and confounding in the design and analysis of epidemiological case-control studies. In: Blithell JF, Coppi R, editors. Perspectives in medical statistics. New York: Academic Press; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kupper LL, Karon JM, Kleinbaum DG, Morgenstern H, Lewis DK. Matching in epidemiologic studies: validity and efficiency considerations. Biometrics. 1981;37:271–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Samuels ML. Matching and design efficiency in epidemiological studies. Biometrika. 1981;68:577–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas DC, Greenland S. The relative efficiencies of matched and independent sample designs for case-control studies. J Chronic Dis. 1983;36:685–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith PG, Day NE. The design of case-control studies: the influence of confounding and interaction effects. Int J Epidemiol. 1984;13:356–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas DC, Greenland S. The efficiency of matching in case-control studies of risk-factor interactions. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:569–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenland S. Estimating variances of standardized estimators in case-control studies and sparse data. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:473–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenland S, Rothman KJ. Introduction to stratified analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 258–82.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical models in epidemiology, chapter 18. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Greenland S. Re: Estimating relative risk functions in case-control studies using a nonparametric logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146:883–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Breslow NE, Lubin JH, Marek P, Langholz B. Multiplicative models and cohort analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1983;78:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Greenland S. Introduction to regression modeling. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 418–55.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Greenland S. Applications of stratified analysis methods. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 283–302.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jewell NP. Statistics for epidemiology, chapter 16. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robinson LD, Jewell NP. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression. Int Stat Rev. 1991;59:227–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Brookmeyer R, Liang KY, Linet M. Matched case-control designs and overmatched analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:693–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14:300–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Didelez V, Kreiner S, Keiding N. On the use of graphical models for inference under outcome dependent sampling. Stat Sci. 2010;25:368–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalish LA. Matching on a non-risk factor in the design of case-control studies does not always result in an efficiency loss. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;123:551–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mansournia MA, Altman DG. Inverse probability weighting. BMJ. 2016;15(352):i189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mansournia MA, Danaei G, Forouzanfar MH, Mahmoudi M, Jamali M, Mansournia N, Mohammad K. Effect of physical activity on functional performance and knee pain in patients with osteoarthritis: analysis with marginal structural models. Epidemiology. 2012;23:631–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Szklo M, Nieto F. Epidemiology: beyond the basics, chapter 6. 3rd ed. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. 1983;2:243–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenland S, Maldonado G. The interpretation of multiplicative model parameters as standardized parameters. Stat Med. 1994;13:989–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mohammad K, Hashemi Nazari SS, Mansournia N, Mansournia MA. Marginal versus conditional causal effects. J Biostat Epidemiol. 2015;1:121–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Greenland S. Dose-response and trend analysis: alternatives to category-indicator regression. Epidemiology. 1995;6:356–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sjölander A, Greenland S. Ignoring the matching variables in cohort studies: when is it valid and why? Stat Med. 2013;32:4696–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Matching and efficiency in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;131:151–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, Robins JM. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:262–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci. 1999;14:29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mansournia MA, Greenland S. The relation of collapsibility and confounding to faithfulness and stability. Epidemiology. 2015;26:466–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Greenland S, Pearl J. Adjustments and their consequences: collapsibility analysis using graphical models. Int Stat Rev. 2011;79:401–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pang M, Kaufman JS, Platt RW. Studying noncollapsibility of the odds ratio with marginal structural and logistic regression models. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25:1925–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lombard HL, Doering CR. Cancer studies in Massachusetts. 2. Habits, characteristics and environment of individuals with and without cancer. N Engl J Med. 1928;198:481–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lane-Claypon JE. A further report on cancer of the breast. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  53. VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics. 2011;67:1406–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Greenland S, Schwartzbaum JA, Finkle WD. Problems from small samples and sparse data in conditional logistic regression analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:531–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Greenland S. Small-sample bias and corrections for conditional maximum-likelihood odds-ratio estimators. Biostatistics. 2000;1:113–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jewell NP. Small-sample bias of point estimators of the odds ratio from matched sets. Biometrics. 1984;40:421–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Greenland S, Mansournia MA, Altman DG. Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain sight. BMJ. 2016;27(352):i1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Greenland S, Mansournia MA. Penalization, bias reduction, and default priors in logistic and related categorical and survival regressions. Stat Med. 2015;34:3133–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mansournia MA, Geroldinger A, Greenland S, Heinze G. Separation in logistic regression–causes, consequences, and control. Am J Epidemiol. 2017. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx299.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Shrier I. Re: the design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2008;27:2740–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pearl J. Remarks on the method of propensity score. Stat Med. 2009;28:1415–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. King G, Nielsen R. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Vers. 2 Feb. 2016 downloaded from http://j.mp/1FQhySn.

  63. Mansson R, Joffe MM, Sun W, Hennessy S. On the estimation and use of propensity scores in case-control and case-cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:332–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Austin H, Flanders WD, Rothman KJ. Bias arising in case-control studies from selection of controls from overlapping groups. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:713–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to David Clayton and the referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, PO Box 14155-6446, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Ali Mansournia

  2. Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Nicholas Patrick Jewell

  3. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Nicholas Patrick Jewell

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sander Greenland

  5. Department of Statistics, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sander Greenland

Authors
  1. Mohammad Ali Mansournia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Patrick Jewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sander Greenland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Ali Mansournia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansournia, M.A., Jewell, N.P. & Greenland, S. Case–control matching: effects, misconceptions, and recommendations. Eur J Epidemiol 33, 5–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0325-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0325-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation