Assessment of selection bias in the Canadian case-control study of residential magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia.

19Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The authors evaluated the role of selection bias in the 1999 Canadian case-control study of residential magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia. They included cases, participating controls, and first-choice nonparticipating controls in their analyses. Exposure was assessed by wire coding, a classification system based on the distribution line characteristics near homes. Although an imperfect measure of magnetic field exposure, wire coding is the only method applicable to nonparticipating subjects. First-choice nonparticipant controls tended to be of lower socioeconomic status than their replacements (non-first-choice participant controls), and lower socioeconomic status was related to higher wire code categories. The odds ratios for developing childhood leukemia in the highest exposure category were 1.6 (95% confidence interval: 1.0, 2.6) when the actual participating controls were used and 1.3 (95% confidence interval: 0.8, 2.1) when the first-choice ideal controls were used, regardless of their participation. Overall, the authors conclude that, although there is some evidence for control selection or participation bias in the Canadian study, it is unlikely to explain entirely the observed association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia. Inherent problems in exposure assessment for nonparticipating subjects, however, limit the interpretations of these results, and the role of selection bias cannot entirely be dismissed on the basis of these results alone.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mezei, G., Spinelli, J. J., Wong, P., Borugian, M., & McBride, M. L. (2008). Assessment of selection bias in the Canadian case-control study of residential magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(12), 1504–1510. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn086

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free