Census and geographic differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 167, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 350-361

  Shen, Min ^a   Cozen, Wendy ^b   Huang, Lan ^a   Colt, Joanne ^a   De Roos, Anneclaire J ^c,d   Severson, Richard K ^e,f   Cerhan, James R ^g   Bernstein, Leslie ^b   Morton, Lindsay M ^a   Pickle, Linda ^a   Ward, Mary H ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias (epidemiology); Case control studies; Censuses; Epidemiologic methods; Geographic information systems; Lymphoma, non Hodgkin

Indexed keywords

CENSUS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DATABASE; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION; GIS; HEALTH RISK; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; MAPPING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; TUMOR;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; GEOGRAPHIC PATHOLOGY; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INCOME; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; POPULATION RESEARCH; RACE; SEX RATIO; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES; URBAN AREA; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNIC GROUP; GEOGRAPHY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CENSUSES; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; DATA COLLECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; GEOGRAPHY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; LYMPHOMA, NON-HODGKIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RISK FACTORS; SEER PROGRAM; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 38849130725     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm292     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Morton LM, Cahill J, Hartge P. Reporting participation in epidemiologic studies: a survey of practice. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:197-203.
2. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Precision and validity in epidemiologic studies. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, eds. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998:115-34.
3. Chatterjee N, Hartge P, Cerhan JR, et al. Risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and family history of lymphatic, hematologic, and other cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1415-21.
4. Ward MH, Nuckols JR, Giglierano J, et al. Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding. Epidemiology 2005;16:542-7.
5. Ward MH, Lubin J, Giglierano J, et al. Proximity to crops and residential exposure to agricultural herbicides in Iowa. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:893-7.
6. SAS Institute, Inc. The GLIMMIX procedure. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc, 2005.
7. Kulldorff M. A spatial scan statistic. Commun Stat Theory Methods 1997;26:1481-96.
8. Kulldorff M, Huang L, Pickle L, et al. An elliptic spatial scan statistic. Stat Med 2006;25:3929-43.
9. Kulldorff M. SaTScan: software for the spatial and space-time scan statistics. Version 7.0. Silver Spring, MD: Information Management Services, Inc, 2006.
10. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol 2002;156:471-82.
11. Benfante R, Reed D, MacLean C, et al. Response bias in the Honolulu Heart Program. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:1088-100.
12. Richiardi L, Boffetta P, Merletti F. Analysis of nonresponse bias in a population-based case-control study on lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:1033-40.
13. Psaty BM, Cheadle A, Koepsell TD, et al. Race- and ethnicity-specific characteristics of participants lost to follow-up in a telephone cohort. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:161-71.
14. Sonne-Holm S, Sorensen TI, Jensen G, et al. Influence of fatness, intelligence, education and sociodemographic factors on response rate in a health survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989;43:369-74.
15. Criqui MH. Response bias and risk ratios in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1979;109:394-9.
16. Austin MA, Criqui MH, Barrett-Connor E, et al. The effect of response bias on the odds ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:137-43.
17. Greenland S, Criqui MH. Are case-control studies more vulnerable to response bias? Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:175-7.
18. Chang ET, Zheng T, Weir EG, et al. Childhood social environment and Hodgkin's lymphoma: new findings from a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1361-70.
19. Chen J, Wacholder S, Morton LM, et al. Quantifying selection bias in epidemiologic studies. (Abstract 577). Am J Epidemiol 2005;161(suppl):S145.
20. Hartge P. Raising response rates: getting to yes. Epidemiology 1999;10:105-7.
21. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et al. Lymphoma classification - from controversy to consensus: the R.E.A.L. and WHO Classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Ann Oncol 2000;11(suppl 1):3-10.