Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:21:36.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of well controls: an unhealthy practice in psychiatric research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

S. Schwartz  and
E. Susser
S. Schwartz*
Affiliation:
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
E. Susser
Affiliation:
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: S. Schwartz, Ph.D., Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, Room 720b, New York, NY 10032, USA. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Studies comparing cases with controls to uncover the causes of psychiatric disorders are common in biological research. The validity of these studies depends upon adherence to the methodological principles underlying the case-control design. However, these principles are often violated. One common practice that violates these principles is the use of well controls. In this paper we describe the bias that it can cause and discuss why the use of well controls leads to invalidity in case-control studies.

Method

Using hypothetical numerical examples we illustrate the consequences of using well controls.

Results

The results illustrate that the use of well controls can cause substantial bias. In no instance does the use of well controls improve validity.

Conclusions

We conclude that the use of well controls is an unhealthy practice in psychiatric research.

Keywords

Case-control studiescontrol selectionwell controls
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 41 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 1127 - 1131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adami, H, Elliott, A, Zetlmeisl, M, McMahon, R, Thaker, G (2002). Use of telephone screens improves efficiency of healthy subject recruitment. Psychiatric Research 113, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS (1990). The super-normal control group in psychiatric genetics: possible artifactual evidence for coaggregation. Psychiatric Genetics 1, 45–53.Google Scholar
Lee, WJ, Bindman, J, Ford, T, Glozier, N, Moran, P, Stewart, R, Hotopf, M (2007). Bias in psychiatric case-control studies: literature survey. British Journal of Psychiatry 190, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, KJ, Greenland, S, Lash, TL (2008). Modern Epidemiology, 3rd edn. Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Schechter, D, Levobitch, R (2005). Normal controls are expensive to find: methods to improve cost-effectiveness of the screening evaluation. Psychiatric Research 136, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesselman, JJ (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S, Link, BG (1989). The ‘well control’ artefact in case/control studies of specific psychiatric disorders. Psychological Medicine 19, 737–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Susser, E, Schwartz, S, Morabia, A, Bromet, EJ (2006). Psychiatric Epidemiology: Searching for the Causes of Mental Disorders. Oxford University Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talati, A, Fyer, SJ, Weissman, MM (2008). A comparison between screened NIMH and clinically interviewed control samples on neuroticism and extraversion. Molecular Psychiatry 13, 122–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed