Case counting in epidemiology: limitations of methods based on multiple data sources.

BACKGROUND The application of capture-recapture methods in epidemiology has been proposed as an alternative to field surveys. This methodology is important for the future of epidemiology and deserves a critical analysis. METHODS This paper reviews conditions for applying the capture-recapture models to epidemiological data, taking into account practical considerations, in particular the problem of case definition. RESULTS The underlying assumptions are particularly restrictive resulting in a theoretical limitation of their applicability. In spite of the statistical developments designed to overcome these difficulties, the practical conditions for using the existing lists are often not fulfilled (availability, confidentiality). The major restriction is on the quality of the data which are often far below the standards required in specific prevalence surveys and which may differ between lists. This may result in a dramatic lack of specificity. The definition of the virtual subgroup of patients missing in all lists as generated by the statistical procedure, is questionable particularly when counting living patients. Field studies would be necessary for validation. CONCLUSIONS In some particular situations (e.g. deceased patients, rare diseases), this methodology may provide a useful approximation to the number of ill subjects events, but users should be aware of their poor specificity. It can also be useful to complement data from surveillance systems by careful cross-checking with independent sources of information. Currently, this method cannot, in any way, replace direct population prevalence or incidence surveys.

[1]  D. G. Chapman Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoölogical somple censuses , 1951 .

[2]  J. Nichols,et al.  Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments , 1992 .

[3]  R. Cormack Log-linear models for capture-recapture , 1989 .

[4]  R E LaPorte,et al.  Ascertainment corrected rates: applications of capture-recapture methods. , 1993, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  V W Sidel,et al.  Capture-recapture methods for assessing the completeness of case ascertainment when using multiple information sources. , 1974, Journal of chronic diseases.

[6]  R. Regal,et al.  Capture-recapture methods , 1992, The Lancet.

[7]  R E LaPorte,et al.  Monitoring the incidence of myocardial infarctions: applications of capture-mark-recapture technology. , 1992, International journal of epidemiology.

[8]  R. Regal,et al.  Effect of variation in probability of ascertainment by sources ("variable catchability") upon "capture-recapture" estimates of prevalence. , 1993, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  S. Fienberg The multiple recapture census for closed populations and incomplete 2k contingency tables , 1972 .

[10]  J. Desenclos,et al.  Limitations to the universal use of capture-recapture methods. , 1994, International journal of epidemiology.

[11]  J. Marks,et al.  Congenital rubella syndrome in the United States, 1970-1985. On the verge of elimination. , 1989, American journal of epidemiology.

[12]  G. Seber The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters , 1974 .

[13]  R R Regal,et al.  The value of capture-recapture methods even for apparent exhaustive surveys. The need for adjustment for source of ascertainment intersection in attempted complete prevalence studies. , 1992, American journal of epidemiology.

[14]  J Wittes,et al.  A generalization of the simple capture-recapture model with applications to epidemiological research. , 1968, Journal of chronic diseases.

[15]  D. Mccarty,et al.  Counting birds, bees, and NCDs , 1992, The Lancet.

[16]  R E LaPorte,et al.  Counting Diabetes in the Next Millennium: Application of capture-recapture technology , 1993, Diabetes Care.