This study compares dose-response injury risk estimates for two control periods defined as the same 6-hour period the week prior and the set of all non-sleeping 6-hour periods over the past year. Dose-response injury risk estimates for the multiple match controls are generated via the application of a maximum-likelihood approach. Injury risk associated with any (i.e., 1 drink or more) drinking 6 hours prior to injury was similar for the two control choices (last week and usual frequency). For 1–4 drinks, risk estimates were similar across control period definitions; for 5+ drinks, risk using the week prior as the control was nearly double that using the past 12 months as the control. Although studies with smaller n-sizes may benefit from the increase in precision from the use of the multiple control periods, results indicate that heavy drinking injury risk estimates should be used with caution.
BorgesG.CherpitelC.J., & MittlemanM. (2004). The risk of injury after alcohol consumption: A case-crossover study in the emergency room. Social Science and Medicine, 58(6), 1191–1200.
2.
BorgesG.CherpitelC.J.OrozcoR.BondJ.YeY.MacDonaldS. (2006a). Acute alcohol use and the risk of non-fatal injury in sixteen countries. Addiction, 101(7), 993–1002.
3.
BorgesG.CherpitelC.J.OrozcoR.BondJ.YeY.MacDonaldS. (2006b). Multicentre study of acute alcohol use and non-fatal injuries: Data from the WHO collaborative study on alcohol and injuries. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 84(6), 453–460.
4.
BorgesG.OrozcoR.MonteiroM.CherpitelC.J.Pérez-ThenE.LópezV.A. (2013). Risk of injury after alcohol consumption from case-crossover studies in five countries from the Americas. Addiction, 108(1), 97–103.
5.
CherpitelC.J. (2005). Emergency Room Collaborative Analysis Project (ERCAAP), in Alcohol and Injury: New Knowledge from Emergency Room Studies. October 3–6, Berkeley, CA.
6.
CherpitelC.J.BondJ.YeY.BorgesG.MacDonaldS., & GiesbrechtN.A. (2003). A cross-national meta-analysis of alcohol and injury: Data from the Emergency Room Collaborative Alcohol Analysis Project (ERCAAP). Addiction, 98(9), 1277–1286.
7.
CherpitelC.J.YeY.BondJ.BorgesG.ChouP.NilsenP. (2012a). Multi-level analysis of alcohol-related injury and drinking pattern: Emergency department data from 19 countriesAddiction, 107(7), 1263–1272.
8.
CherpitelC.J.YeY.MoskalewiczJ., & SwiatkiewiczG. (2005). Risk of injury: A case-crossover analysis of injured emergency service patients in Poland. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29(12), 2181–2187.
9.
CherpitelC.J.YeY.WattersK.BrubacherJ.R., & StenstromR. (2012b). Risk of injury from alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: A case-crossover study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(4), 431–438.
10.
GmelG., & DaeppenJ-B. (2007). Recall bias for seven-day recall measurement of alcohol consumption among emergency department patients: Implications for case-crossover designs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 68(2), 303–310.
11.
GmelG., & DaeppenJ-B. (2009). Conceptual issues in emergency room studies and paths forward, In CherpitelC.J.BorgesG.GiesbrechtN.HungerfordD.PedenM.PoznyakV.RoomR., & StockwellT. (Eds.), Alcohol and injuries: Emergency department studies in an international perspective, (pp. 115–131). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
12.
MacLureM. (1991). The case-crossover design: A method for studying transient effect on the risk of acute events. American Journal of Epidemiology, 133(2), 144–53.
13.
MacLureM., & MittlemanM.A. (2000). Should we use a case-crossover design?Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 193–221.
14.
MarshallR.J., & JacksonR.T. (1993). Analysis of case-crossover designs. Statistics in Medicine, 12(24), 2333–2341.
15.
MarshallR.J.WoutersS., & JacksonR.T. (2000). A case-crossover analysis of a case-control study of alcohol consumption and coronary events: The effects of exposure definition and the use of control data. The Journal of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 5(6), 367–373.
16.
MittlemanM.A.MacLureM., & RobinsJ.M. (1995) Control sampling strategies for case-crossover studies: An assessment of relative efficiency. American Journal of Epidemiology, 142(1), 91–98.
17.
RothmanK.J., & GreenlandS. (1998). Modern Epidemiology. Second ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
18.
VinsonD.C.MacLureM.ReidingerC., & SmithG.S. (2003). A population-based case-crossover and case-control study of alcohol and the risk of injury. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 358–366.
19.
WHO Collaborative Study Group (2005). WHO Collaborative Study on Alcohol and Injuries. Final Report. Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
20.
YeY.BondJ.CherpitelC.J.StockwellT.MacDonaldS., & RehmJ. (2013). Risk of injury due to alcohol: Evaluating potential bias using the case-crossover usual-frequency method. Epidemiology, 24(2), 240–243.
21.
ZeisserC.StockwellT.R.ChikritzhsT.CherpitelC.J.YeY., & GardnerC. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and injury risk as a function of study design and recall period. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(Suppl. 1), E1–E8.
