Volume 66, Issue 1 pp. 214-221

Estimating Disease Prevalence Using Relatives of Case and Control Probands

Kristin N. Javaras

Corresponding Author

Kristin N. Javaras

Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging & Behavior, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53705, U.S.A.

email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Nan M. Laird

Nan M. Laird

Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
James I. Hudson

James I. Hudson

Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A.

Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts 02478, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Brian D. Ripley

Brian D. Ripley

Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3TG, U.K.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 17 March 2010
Citations: 6

Abstract

Summary We introduce a method of estimating disease prevalence from case–control family study data. Case–control family studies are performed to investigate the familial aggregation of disease; families are sampled via either a case or a control proband, and the resulting data contain information on disease status and covariates for the probands and their relatives. Here, we introduce estimators for overall prevalence and for covariate-stratum-specific (e.g., sex-specific) prevalence. These estimators combine the proportion of affected relatives of control probands with the proportion of affected relatives of case probands and are designed to yield approximately unbiased estimates of their population counterparts under certain commonly made assumptions. We also introduce corresponding confidence intervals designed to have good coverage properties even for small prevalences. Next, we describe simulation experiments where our estimators and intervals were applied to case–control family data sampled from fictional populations with various levels of familial aggregation. At all aggregation levels, the resulting estimates varied closely and symmetrically around their population counterparts, and the resulting intervals had good coverage properties, even for small sample sizes. Finally, we discuss the assumptions required for our estimators to be approximately unbiased, highlighting situations where an alternative estimator based only on relatives of control probands may perform better.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.