We recently published a paper in Current Epidemiology Reports describing how the case-only design is commonly misinterpreted in injury epidemiology. Due to the availability of registries and Emergency Department medical record databases, case-only studies are common in the injury epidemiology literature. The term “case-only design” covers a variety of epidemiologic designs, with two of the designs being prominent in the injury epidemiology literature; (1) studies to measure exposure effect modification, and (2) studies to uncover etiological heterogeneity. Although the mechanics of conducting these two study designs are quite similar, the two designs produce results that require completely different interpretations and rely upon different assumptions. Despite this, in the literature it is common for the results of studies using these two designs to be interpreted in the same way and it is rare that the papers address whether the key assumptions are met.
We show that the key assumption of case-only designs for exposure effect modification, the more commonly used of the two designs, does not commonly hold for injuries and so results from studies using this design cannot be interpreted. Our paper includes a series of recommendations for the conduct and reporting of case-only designs seeking to test for exposure effect modification. However, we are quite pessimistic that this design can be effectively used to understand the etiology of injuries or for designing interventions.
Although less commonly used, case-only designs to identify etiological heterogeneity in injury risk are interpretable but only when the case-series is conceptualized as arising from an underlying cohort. However, in the literature the results of studies of this design are often not interpreted correctly. But we do expect that if these studies are interpreted correctly, they can be used to understand the etiology of injuries or for designing interventions.