Hospital controls versus community controls: Differences in inferences regarding risk factors for hip fracture

Abstract

In case-control studies using cases identified from persons admitted to hospitals, two types of controls are most often used: persons from the communities served by the hospitals and persons admitted to the same hospitals as those to which the cases were admitted. It is often unclear which is the more appropriate choice, and whether the use of one or the other type of control group wile lead to biased conclusions. The purpose of the present analysis was to determine whether the choice of hospital controls versus community controls would influence conclusions regarding risk factors for hip fracture. Cases (n = 425), hospital controls (n = 312), and community controls (n = 454) were drawn from a case-control study of risk factors for hip fracture in women. Study participants were white and black women aged 45 years or older and living in New York City or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who were selected between September 1987 and July 1989. Using community controls but not hospital controls, investigators would have concluded that having a fall during the previous 6 months, current smoking, and moving during the previous year were associated with an increased risk of hip fracture. Associations of hip fracture risk with stroke and prior use of ambulatory aids were stronger using community controls, but associations with estrogen use and body mass index were not influenced by choice of control group. Community controls were quite similar to representative samples of community- dwelling elderly women, whereas hospital controls were somewhat sicker and more likely to be current smokers. The authors conclude that community controls comprise the more appropriate control group in case-control studies of hip fracture in the elderly.