ECDC Fellowship Programme, Field Epidemiology Path (EPIET), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Public Health Agency of Lower Saxony, Hanover, Germany.
Epidemiol Infect. 2023 Apr 5;151:e70. doi: 10.1017/S0950268823000493.
We explored the feasibility, suitability, and reliability of using controls recruited among members of a non-probabilistic online panel ('panel controls') in a case-control study (CCS) to investigate a Braenderup outbreak in Germany. For comparison, another control group was recruited via random digit dialling ('classical controls'). Panel members received questionnaires by email; classical controls were interviewed by phone. Both control groups were frequency-matched to cases by age and sex; the classical controls also by federal state. Cases and controls were queried mainly about fruit consumption since melons were the suspected infection vehicle. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using single-variable and multivariable logistic regression. The study included 32 cases, 81 panel controls and 110 classical controls. Analyses identified melons, particularly Galia melons, as the most likely infection vehicle using either control group (panel controls - aOR 12, CI 2.7-66; classical controls - aOR 55, CI 8-1100). Recruitment of panel versus classical controls required substantially less person-time (8 vs. 111 hours) and was about 10 times less expensive. We recommend this timely and reliable control recruitment method when investigating diffuse foodborne outbreaks with CCS.
我们探讨了在病例对照研究(CCS)中使用非概率在线小组(“小组对照”)成员招募的控制措施的可行性、适用性和可靠性,以调查德国的一起 Braenderup 暴发事件。为了比较,我们还通过随机数字拨号(“经典对照”)招募了另一个对照组。小组成员通过电子邮件收到问卷;经典对照组通过电话接受访谈。两个对照组均按年龄和性别与病例进行频率匹配;经典对照组还按联邦州进行匹配。病例和对照组主要询问了水果的消费情况,因为瓜类被怀疑是感染媒介。我们使用单变量和多变量逻辑回归计算了调整后的优势比(aOR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。该研究包括 32 例病例、81 名小组对照和 110 名经典对照。分析结果表明,使用任何对照组(小组对照 - aOR 12,95%CI 2.7-66;经典对照 - aOR 55,95%CI 8-1100),瓜类,特别是 Galia 瓜类,最有可能是感染媒介。与招募经典对照组相比,招募小组对照组所需的人员时间(8 小时对 111 小时)要少得多,并且费用要低约 10 倍。当使用 CCS 调查弥漫性食源性暴发时,我们建议采用这种及时且可靠的对照招募方法。