Abstract
Many pneumonia etiology case-control studies exclude controls with respiratory illness from enrollment or analyses. Herein we argue that selecting controls regardless of respiratory symptoms provides the least biased estimates of pneumonia etiology. We review reasons investigators may choose to exclude controls with respiratory symptoms in light of epidemiologic principles of control selection and present data from the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) study where relevant to assess their validity. We conclude that exclusion of controls with respiratory symptoms will result in biased estimates of etiology. Randomly selected community controls, with or without respiratory symptoms, as long as they do not meet the criteria for case-defining pneumonia, are most representative of the general population from which cases arose and the least subject to selection bias.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | S205-S212 |
| Journal | Clinical Infectious Diseases |
| Volume | 64 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Control selection
- PERCH
- Pneumonia etiology
- Respiratory symptoms
- Selection bias
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Should controls with respiratory symptoms be excluded from case-control studies of pneumonia etiology? Reflections from the PERCH study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver