Assessment of a commercial searchable population directory as a means of selecting controls for case-control studies

Public Health Reports

Volumn 124, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 378-383

  Chintapalli, Sabeena ^a,b   Goodman, Michael ^a,c   Allen, Mark ^d   Ward, Kevin ^a,d   Liff, Jonathan ^a,d   Young, John ^a,d   Terry, Paul ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES   (United States)

^c Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics   (United States)

^d California Cancer Registry   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POPULATION; POPULATION BASED CASE CONTROL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTER; AGED; CASE CONTROL STUDY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; RESEARCH SUBJECT;

AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 66149109984     PISSN: 00333549     EISSN: 14682877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003335490912400306     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1998.
2. Brogan DJ, Denniston MM, Liff JM, Flagg EW, Coates RJ, Brinton LA. Comparison of telephone sampling and area sampling: response rates and within-household coverage. Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:1119-1127 (Pubitemid 32493262)
3. U.S. Code. Drivers Privacy Protection Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq. [cited 2009 Jan 8]. Available from: URL: http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/ DPPA1.htm
4. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opin Q 2000;64:413-428 (Pubitemid 33241089)
5. Tuckel P, O'Neill H. The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys. J Adv Res 2002;42:26-48.
6. Census Bureau (US). Reported voting and registration of the total voting-age population, by sex, race and Hispanic origin, for states. November 2004.
7. Mandel JS, Korelitz JJ, O'Fallon WM. Identification of neighborhood controls and the location and recruitment of all study subjects. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;56:304-309
8. SalesGenie. SalesGenie consumer database. San Carlos (CA): SalesGenie; 2007.
9. Checkoway H, Pearce N, Kriebel D. Research methods in occupational epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
10. Cockburn MG, Hamilton AS, Zadnick J, Cozen W, Mack TM. Development and representativeness of a large population-based cohort of native Californian twins. Twin Res 2001;4:242-250 (Pubitemid 34151416)
11. Hser YI, Evans E. Cross-system data linkage for treatment outcome evaluation: lessons learned from the California Treatment Outcome Project. Eval Program Plann 2008;31:125-135
12. Department of Agriculture (US). Rural-urban continuum codes. Washington: Department of Agriculture; 2003.
13. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Choosing area-based socioeconomic measures to monitor social inequalities in low birth weight and childhood lead poisoning: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (US). J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:186-199 (Pubitemid 36250180)
14. Census Bureau (US). Statistical brief: poverty areas. Washington: Department of Commerce (US); 2002.
15. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS: Version 9.1 for Windows. Cary (NC): SAS Institute, Inc.; 2005.
16. Dean A, Sullivan K, Soe M. OpenEpi: Version 2.2.1. 2008.