European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 321–325 | Cite as

An empirical investigation on matching in published case–control studies

  • Olaf Gefeller
  • Annette Pfahlberg
  • Hermann Brenner
  • Jürgen Windeler


The methodological discussion about matching when recruiting controls in case–control studies has been controversial for a long time. To delineate the impact of this discussion on the practice of matching we reviewed 266 case–control studies published in nine yearly volumes of three major epidemiological journals within the period 1955–1994. Among studies published until 1980 71.7% of the control groups were recruited by individual matching compared to 46.4% in 1994. This decline is paralleled by an increase in the application of frequency matching (from 5.0% to 26.2%). As the issue of matching is closely connected with methodological questions of the statistical analysis we also examined the type of analysis applied to the data. We found that the use of logistic regression modeling has dramatically increased during this period (from 18.4% up to 87.2%), whereas application of the traditional Mantel–Haenszel technique for estimating summary odds ratios has nearly vanished. The correct approach for individually matched data in the logistic modeling framework, the conditional likelihood technique, has been unknown in the early part of the time window of our investigation, but is even nowadays applied by only three quarters of the corresponding studies. Our literature-based investigation provides thus compelling evidence that the type of control selection and statistical analysis used in case–control studies have changed substantially during recent years.

Case–control study Epidemiological methods History of epidemiology Logistic regression Matching Statistics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Breslow NE, Day, NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume 1: The analysis of case-control studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlesselman JJ. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control studies. III. Design options. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135: 1042–1050.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miettinen OS. Matching and design efficiency in retrospective studies. Am J Epidemiol 1970; 91: 111–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pike MC, Hill AP, Smith PG. Bias and efficiency in logistic analyses of stratified case-control studies. Int J Epidemiol 1980; 9: 89–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kupper LL, Karon JM, Kleinbaum DG, et al. Matching in epidemiologic studies: Validity and efficiency considerations. Biometrics 1981; 37: 271–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson WD, Kelsey JL, Walter SD. Cost and efficiency in the choice of matched and unmatched case-control study designs. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 840–851.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karon JM, Kupper LL. In defense of matching. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 862–866.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas DC, Greenland S. The relative efficiencies of matched and independent sample designs for case-control studies. J Chronic Dis 1983; 36: 685–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howe GR, Choi BCK. Methodological issues in case-control studies: Validity and power of various design/analysis strategies. Int J Epidemiol 1983; 12: 238–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walter SD. The feasibility of matching and quota sampling in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 130: 379–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edition. Heidelberg: SAS Institute Inc, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosner B, Hennekens CH. Analytic methods in matched-pair epidemiologic studies. Int J Epidemiol 1978; 7: 367–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719–748.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lilienfeld AM, Lilienfeld DE. A century of case-control studies: progress? J Chron Dis 1979; 32: 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Armenian HK, Lilienfeld DE. Overview and historical perspective. Epidemiol Rev 1994; 16: 1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Gefeller
    • 1
  • Annette Pfahlberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hermann Brenner
    • 3
  • Jürgen Windeler
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Medical StatisticsUniversity of GöttingenGöttingen
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of GöttingenGöttingen
  3. 3.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of UlmUlm
  4. 4.Institute of BiometryUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations