Field Service, Public Health England,London,UK.
NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, University of Liverpool,Liverpool, UK.
Epidemiol Infect. 2019 Jan;147:e99. doi: 10.1017/S0950268819000219.
Current methods of control recruitment for case-control studies can be slow (a particular issue for outbreak investigations), resource-intensive and subject to a range of biases. Commercial market panels are a potential source of rapidly recruited controls. Our study evaluated food exposure data from these panel controls, compared with an established reference dataset. Market panel data were collected from two companies using retrospective internet-based surveys; these were compared with reference data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios to compare exposure to each of the 71 food items between the market panel and NDNS participants. We compared 2103 panel controls with 2696 reference participants. Adjusted for socio-demographic factors, exposure to 90% of foods was statistically different between both panels and the reference data. However, these differences were likely to be of limited practical importance for 89% of Panel A foods and 79% of Panel B foods. Market panel food exposures were comparable with reference data for common food exposures but more likely to be different for uncommon exposures. This approach should be considered for outbreak investigation, in conjunction with other considerations such as population at risk, timeliness of response and study resources.
目前用于病例对照研究的控制招募方法可能很慢（爆发调查的一个特殊问题），资源密集且容易受到各种偏差的影响。商业市场面板是快速招募对照的潜在来源。我们的研究评估了这些面板对照的食物暴露数据，并将其与已建立的参考数据集进行了比较。市场面板数据是使用回顾性基于互联网的调查从两家公司收集的；这些数据与国家饮食和营养调查（NDNS）的参考数据进行了比较。我们使用逻辑回归计算了调整后的优势比，以比较市场面板和 NDNS 参与者之间对每种 71 种食物的暴露情况。我们比较了 2103 个面板对照和 2696 个参考参与者。在调整了社会人口统计学因素后，两个面板和参考数据之间 90%的食物暴露情况在统计学上存在差异。然而，对于 89%的 A 面板食物和 79%的 B 面板食物，这些差异可能具有有限的实际意义。市场面板的食物暴露情况与参考数据中常见食物暴露情况相当，但对于不常见的暴露情况更有可能不同。这种方法应该与其他考虑因素（如风险人群、反应及时性和研究资源）一起考虑用于爆发调查。
