Norell S E, Ahlbom A
Scand J Work Environ Health. 1987 Feb;13(1):62-6. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.2080.
In case-referent studies, the choice between hospital and population referents involves the consideration of nonresponse, information bias, and selection bias. A case-referent study of astrocytoma and one of pancreatic cancer used both hospital and population referents. In the present report the two series of referents were compared with regard to potential sources of systematic errors. There were differences in reported exposure between the hospital and population referents. These differences seemed to be due to differences in exposure experience ("selection bias") rather than to differences in the quality of reported information ("information bias"). This conclusion was based on two findings. First, in the comparison between the hospital and population referents, similar differences were found in the reported exposure for "hard" questionnaire items as for "soft" questionnaire items. Second, in a comparison between reported radiographs and radiographs according to medical records, the same differences were found for the two series of referents, although there was considerable underreporting of such exposure in both series. Nonresponse rates were somewhat higher among the population referents than among the hospital referents.
在病例对照研究中,选择医院对照还是人群对照需要考虑无应答、信息偏倚和选择偏倚。一项关于星形细胞瘤的病例对照研究以及一项关于胰腺癌的病例对照研究同时使用了医院对照和人群对照。在本报告中,对这两组对照在系统误差的潜在来源方面进行了比较。医院对照和人群对照在报告的暴露情况上存在差异。这些差异似乎是由于暴露经历的不同(“选择偏倚”),而非报告信息质量的差异(“信息偏倚”)。这一结论基于两项发现。其一,在医院对照和人群对照的比较中,对于“硬性”问卷项目和“软性”问卷项目,报告的暴露情况存在类似差异。其二,在根据医疗记录比较报告的X光片和实际X光片时,两组对照也出现了相同的差异,尽管两组中此类暴露的报告都存在大量漏报情况。人群对照的无应答率略高于医院对照。