Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Abstract

Object Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting. Methods The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as “case-control” and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Results The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52–51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69–28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.998) and use of the word “outcome” in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082–0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064–0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015–1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design “expert” (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57–3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50–86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%). Conclusions The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as “case-control” studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term “case-control” and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.