Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Control Selection
- Conventional (without target disorder/syndrome based on Rome III criteria): those who may have a series of symptoms and even another syndrome, but did not fall into the case group according to the diagnostic means.
- Criterion-free (without any positive criteria): those people whose report does not match the cut-off point of positive (partial symptomatic), although they may express some extent of illness.
- Syndrome-free (without any disorder/syndrome): those people with some symptoms who could not be defined as having any other functional syndrome or case group definition (asyndromic control).
- Symptom-free without any symptoms: those people who did not report any symptoms according to the diagnostic measures (asymptomatic controls); indeed, the case group criteria do not fit them.
1.2. Analysis Round
- First control (Conventional); if subject had FD based on Rome-III, then FD = 1, else FD = 0
- Second control group (Criterion-Free); if subject never or sometimes experienced specific FGID symptom (xi) = 0, else xi = 1; compute sum = sum (symptom (xi) for all i = 1, …, 62. then FD = 1 if subject had sum > 0, else FD = 0 if sum = 0.
- Third control group (Syndrome-Free). If subject had no syndrome (xi), recode syndrome (xi) to 0, else = 1, compute sum = sum (syndrome (xi) for all i = 1, …, 17. then FD = 1 if sum > 0, else FD = 0 if sum = 0.
- Fourth control group (Symptom-Free). If subject reported symptom (xi) as never recode symptom (xi) to 0 else = 1, compute sum = sum (symptom (xi) for all i = 1, …, 62. then FD = 1 if sum > 0, else FD = 0 if sum = 0.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Participants
2.2. Procedures
2.2.1. Case and Control Group Definition
2.2.2. Case Group
2.3. Functional Dyspepsia Assessment
Control Groups
2.4. Psychological Disorder Evaluation
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Burton, C.; Fink, P.; Henningsen, P.; Löwe, B.; Winfried Rief, W.; on behalf of the EURONET-SOMA Group. Functional somatic disorders: Discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use. BMC Med. 2020, 18, 34. [Google Scholar]
- Enck, P.; Azpiroz, F.; Boeckxstaens, G.; Elsenbruch, S.; Feinle-Bisset, C.; Holtmann, G.; Lackner, J.M.; Ronkainen, J.; Schemann, M.; Stengel, A.; et al. Functional dyspepsia. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Serag, H.B.; Talley, N.J. Health-related quality of life in functional dyspepsia. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2003, 18, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drossman, D.A. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome III process. Gastroenterology 2006, 130, 1377–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drossman, D.A. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome II process. Gut 1999, 45, 1–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Drossman, D.A. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: History, Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, and Rome IV. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 1262–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feinle-Bisset, C. Upper gastrointestinal sensitivity to meal-related signals in adult humans—relevance to appetite regulation and gut symptoms in health, obesity and functional dyspepsia. Physiol. Behav. 2016, 162, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hashem-Dabaghian, F.; Agah, S.; Taghavi-Shirazi, M.; Ghobadi, A. Combination Nigella sativa and honey in eradication of gastric Helicobacter pylori infection. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2016, 18, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agah, S.; Akbari, A.; Heshmati, J.; Sepidarkish, M.; Morvaridzadeh, M.; Adibi, P.; Mazidi, M.; Farsi, F.; Ofori-Asenso, R.; Talley, N.J.; et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Effects of probiotic supplementation on symptoms in functional dyspepsia. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 68, 103902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dey, T.; Mukherjee, A.; Chakraborty, S. A practical overview of case-control studies in clinical practice. Chest 2020, 158, S57–S64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wacholder, S.; Joseph, K.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Debra, T.; Silverman, D.T.; Jack, S.; Mandel, J.S. Selection of controls in case—Control studies. I. Principles. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1992, 135, 1019–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wacholder, S.; Sllverman, D.T.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Mandel, J.S. Selection of controls in case—Control Studies II. Types of controls. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1992, 135, 1029–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wacholder, S.; Sllverman, D.T.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Mandel, J.S. Selection of controls in case—Control studies. III. Design options. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1992, 135, 1042–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyante, S.J.; Biritwum, R.; Figueroa, J.; Graubard, B.; Awuah, B.; Addai, B.W.; Yarmey, J.; Clegg-Lamptey, J.N.; Ansong, D.; Nyarko, K.; et al. Recruiting population controls for case-control studies in sub-Saharan Africa: The Ghana Breast Health Study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandera, E.V.; Chandran, U.; Zirpoli, G.; McCann, S.E.; Ciupak, G.; Ambrosone, C.B. Rethinking sources of representative controls for the conduct of case–control studies in minority populations. BMC Med Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- van Stralen, K.J.; Dekker, F.W.; Zoccali, C.; Jager, K.J. Case-control studies–an efficient observational study design. Nephron Clin. Pract. 2010, 114, c1–c4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waldram, A.; McKerr, C.; Gobin, M.; Adak, G.; Stuart, J.M.; Cleary, P. Control selection methods in recent case–control studies conducted as part of infectious disease outbreaks. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 30, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adibi, P.; Keshteli, A.H.; Esmaillzadeh, A.; Afshar, H.; Roohafza, H.; Bagherian-Sararoudi, R.; Daghaghzadeh, H.; Soltanian, N.; Feinle-Bisset, C.; Boyce, P.; et al. The study on the epidemiology of psychological, alimentary health and nutrition (SEPAHAN): Overview of methodology. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2012, 17, S292–S298. [Google Scholar]
- Adibi, P.; Hasanzadeh Keshteli, A.; Daghaghzadeh, H.; Roohafza, H.; Pournaghshband, N.; Afshar, H. Association of anxiety, depression, and psychological distress in people with and without functional dyspepsia. Adv. BioMed. R. 2016, 5, 195. [Google Scholar]
- Montazeri, A.; Harirchi, A.M.; Shariati, M.; Garmaroudi, G.; Ebadi, M.; Fateh, A. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2003, 1, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montazeri, A.; Vahdaninia, M.; Ebrahimi, M.; Jarvandi, S. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2003, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Analysis Round | Case *: Target Disorder/Syndrome Positive | Control Type ** | Odds Ratio (OR) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | N | Conventional: without target disorder/syndrome | Possibly greater than 1 | Possibly significant |
2 | N | Criterion-free: without any positive criteria *** | Greater than 1 and first round | significant and smaller than first round |
3 | N | Syndrome-free: without any disorder/syndrome | Greater than 1 and second control group option | significant and smaller than second round |
4 | N | Symptom-free: without any symptom + | Greatest (more than 1 and greater than third control group option) | significant and the smallest |
Variables | Psychological Distress (n = 4628) | Anxiety (n = 4657) | Depression (n = 4653) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Presence 1067 (23.1%) | Absence 3561 (76.9%) | Presence 654 (14%) | Absence 4003 (86%) | Presence 1338 (28.8%) | Absence 3315 (71.2%) | |
Sex | ||||||
Male | 367 (18.1%) | 1657 (81.9%) | 204 (10%) | 1841 (90%) | 454 (22.2%) | 1590 (77.8%) |
Female | 700 (26.9%) | 1904 (73.1%) | 450 (17.2%) | 2162 (82.8%) | 884 (33.9%) | 1725 (66.1%) |
Functional Dyspepsia | ||||||
Case N = 723 | 304 (42.9%) | 404 (57.1%) | 252 (35.5%) | 458 (64.5%) | 384 (54%) | 327 (46%) |
Control 1 | 763 (19.5%) | 3157 (80.5%) | 402 (10.2%) | 3545 (89.8%) | 954 (24.2%) | 2988 (75.8%) |
Control 2 | 148 (10.2%) | 1300 (89.8%) | 56 (3.8%) | 1413 (96.2%) | 203 (13.9%) | 1262 (86.1%) |
Control 3 | 74 (9.2%) | 731 (90.8%) | 24 (2.9%) | 794 (97.1%) | 103 (12.6%) | 712 (87.4%) |
Control 4 | 13 (6.7%) | 181 (93.3%) | 7 (3.6%) | 186 (96.4%) | 13 (6.7%) | 180 (93.3%) |
Predictor Variables | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable Based on Different Control Selection | Psychological Distress (n = 4628) | Anxiety (n = 4657) | Depression (n = 4653) | |||
OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |
Case–Control 1 (Total sample) | ||||||
Adjusted | 3.128 | 2.607–3.755 | 4.803 | 3.930–5.871 | 3.556 | 2.973–4.254 |
Unadjusted | 3.113 | 2.631–3.685 | 4.852 | 4.032–5.839 | 3.678 | 3.120–4.336 |
Case–Control 1 (male) | ||||||
Adjusted | 4.238 | 3.079–5.833 | 5.859 | 4.024–8.529 | 4.488 | 3.289–6.122 |
Unadjusted | 3.884 | 2.934–5.140 | 5.412 | 3.920–7.472 | 4.458 | 3.397–5.849 |
Case–Control 1 (female) | ||||||
Adjusted | 2.713 | 2.175–3.383 | 4.468 | 3.525–5.663 | 3.183 | 2.560–3.957 |
Unadjusted | 2.640 | 2.137–3.262 | 4.389 | 3.496–5.511 | 3.144 | 2.554–3.871 |
Case–Control 2 (Total sample) | ||||||
Adjusted | 6.645 | 5.194–8.500 | 13.812 | 9.82–19.411 | 6.848 | 5.454–8.600 |
Unadjusted | 6.610 | 5.273–8.285 | 13.883 | 10.202–18.893 | 7.300 | 5.923–8.998 |
Case–Control 2 (male) | ||||||
Adjusted | 7.150 | 4.840–10.563 | 15.065 | 8.492–26.727 | 7.555 | 5.216–10.941 |
Unadjusted | 6.736 | 4.758–9.537 | 13.397 | 8.236–21.793 | 7.751 | 5.584–10.758 |
Case–Control 2 (female) | ||||||
Adjusted | 6.329 | 4.613–8.683 | 13.184 | 8.644–20.109 | 6.484 | 4.857–8.657 |
Unadjusted | 6.165 | 4.559–8.337 | 12.813 | 8.570–19.157 | 6.403 | 4.866–8.427 |
Case–Control 3 (Total sample) | ||||||
Adjusted | 7.039 | 5.223–9.488 | 15.785 | 10.077–24.724 | 7.564 | 5.753–9.945 |
Unadjusted | 7.433 | 5.609–9.851 | 18.203 | 11.792–28.101 | 8.118 | 6.298–10.463 |
Case–Control 3 (male) | ||||||
Adjusted | 6.422 | 4.049–10.187 | 12.966 | 6.415–26.208 | 8.417 | 5.343–13.259 |
Unadjusted | 6.890 | 4.498–10.555 | 16.369 | 8.273–32.387 | 9.211 | 6.110–13.885 |
Case–Control 3 (female) | ||||||
Adjusted | 7.615 | 5.128–11.308 | 18.452 | 10.232–33.277 | 7.307 | 5.171–10.323 |
Unadjusted | 7.685 | 5.262–11.223 | 18.311 | 10.403–32.230 | 7.079 | 5.115–9.796 |
Case–Control 4 (Total sample) | ||||||
Adjusted | 9.605 | 5.209–17.713 | 15.822 | 3.753–66.706 | 19.089 | 6.681–54.545 |
Unadjusted | 10.477 | 5.853–18.752 | 20.670 | 4.970–85.961 | 19.052 | 7.506–48.359 |
Case–Control 4 (male) | ||||||
Adjusted | 9.038 | 3.737–21.856 | 11.713 | 5.381–25.497 | 14.190 | 7.699–26.153 |
Unadjusted | 9.097 | 4.060–20.385 | 14.620 | 6.769–31.579 | 16.26 | 9.087–29.095 |
Case–Control 4 (female) | ||||||
Adjusted | 10.491 | 4.461–24.670 | 10.502 | 4.142–26.624 | 13.016 | 6.062–27.948 |
Unadjusted | 11.588 | 4.963–27.059 | 11.096 | 4.418–27.869 | 13.591 | 6.429–28.734 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Adibi, P.; Agah, S.; Doosti, H.; Feizi, A. Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910296
Adibi P, Agah S, Doosti H, Feizi A. Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19):10296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910296
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdibi, Peyman, Shahram Agah, Hassan Doosti, and Awat Feizi. 2021. "Impact of Best-Fitted Control Selection on Effect Size: An Example in Functional GI Disorder Case–Control Studies" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19: 10296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910296