Lele C, Holly E A, Roseman D S, Thomas D B
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Oct 1;140(7):643-8. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117303.
Although random digit dialing (RDD) is an accepted and commonly used method of sampling populations for controls in case-control studies, there have been surprisingly few attempts to compare the accuracy of RDD with that of the best traditional alternative, i.e., household area surveys. The aim of the present study was to compare a variety of characteristics of control subjects selected by RDD and area survey methods. All data were gathered through in-person interviews of both types of control subjects. The area survey identified a population-based sample of 20- to 79-year-old residents of two Washington State counties in 1978 and 1979. Control groups for three case-control studies of bladder cancer, gynecologic cancers, and multiple myeloma were drawn from this area sample, for a total of 240 control subjects. Controls aged 21-64 years from the same counties were identified for the National Bladder Cancer Study using RDD telephone sampling during the same time period. There were 134 respondents in the RDD control group. Overall, the two control groups selected by these two different methods yielded similar estimated frequencies of various population characteristics. The small differences observed in some age/sex subgroups and the statistical significance of the overall measure of association for occupational exposure to organic substances may be attributed to multiple comparisons.
尽管随机数字拨号（RDD）是病例对照研究中用于抽取对照人群样本的一种被认可且常用的方法，但令人惊讶的是，很少有人尝试将RDD的准确性与最佳传统替代方法（即家庭区域调查）的准确性进行比较。本研究的目的是比较通过RDD和区域调查方法选择的对照对象的各种特征。所有数据均通过对这两类对照对象进行面对面访谈收集。区域调查在1978年和1979年确定了华盛顿州两个县20至79岁居民的基于人群的样本。三项膀胱癌、妇科癌症和多发性骨髓瘤病例对照研究的对照组均取自该区域样本，共有240名对照对象。在同一时期，使用RDD电话抽样为国家膀胱癌研究确定了来自相同县的21至64岁的对照对象。RDD对照组有134名受访者。总体而言，通过这两种不同方法选择的两个对照组得出的各种人群特征估计频率相似。在一些年龄/性别亚组中观察到的小差异以及职业接触有机物质的总体关联度量的统计学显著性可能归因于多重比较。
