Measurement error and misclassification of variables frequently occur in epidemiology and involve variables important to public health. Their presence can impact strongly on results of statistical analyses involving such variables. However, investigators commonly fail to pay attention to biases resulting from such mismeasurement. We provide, in two parts, an overview of the types of error that occur, their impacts on analytic results, and statistical methods to mitigate the biases that they cause. In this first part, we review different types of measurement error and misclassification, emphasizing the classical, linear, and Berkson models, and on the concepts of nondifferential and differential error.We describe the impacts of these types of error in covariates and in outcome variables on various analyses, including estimation and testing in regression models and estimating distributions. We outline types of ancillary studies required to provide information about such errors and discuss the implications of covariate measurement error for study design. Methods for ascertaining sample size requirements are outlined, both for ancillary studies designed to provide information about measurement error and for main studies where the exposure of interest is measured with error. We describe two of the simpler methods, regression calibration and simulation extrapolation (SIMEX), that adjust for bias in regression coefficients caused by measurement error in continuous covariates, and illustrate their use through examples drawn from the Observing Protein and Energy (OPEN) dietary validation study. Finally, we review software available for implementing these methods. The second part of the article deals with more advanced topics.
Purpose: Variables in observational studies are commonly subject to measurement error, but the impact of such errors is frequently ignored. As part of the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies Initiative, a task group on measurement error and misclassification seeks to describe the current practice for acknowledging and addressing measurement error. Methods: Task group on measurement error and misclassification conducted a literature survey of four types of research studies that are typically impacted by exposure measurement error: (1) dietary intake cohort studies, (2) dietary intake population surveys, (3) physical activity cohort studies, and (4) air pollution cohort studies. Results: The survey revealed that while researchers were generally aware that measurement error affected their studies, very few adjusted their analysis for the error. Most articles provided incomplete discussion of the potential effects of measurement error on their results. Regression calibration was the most widely used method of adjustment. Conclusions: Methods to correct for measurement error are available but require additional data regarding the error structure. There is a great need to incorporate such data collection within study designs and improve the analytical approach. Increased efforts by investigators, editors, and reviewers are needed to improve presentation of research when data are subject to error.
We continue our review of issues related to measurement error and misclassification in epidemiology. We further describe methods of adjusting for biased estimation caused by measurement error in continuous covariates, covering likelihood methods, Bayesian methods, moment reconstruction, moment-adjusted imputation, and multiple imputation. We then describe which methods can also be used with misclassification of categorical covariates. Methods of adjusting estimation of distributions of continuous variables for measurement error are then reviewed. Illustrative examples are provided throughout these sections. We provide lists of available software for implementing these methods and also provide the code for implementing our examples in the Supporting Information. Next, we present several advanced topics, including data subject to both classical and Berkson error, modeling continuous exposures with measurement error, and categorical exposures with misclassification in the same model, variable selection when some of the variables are measured with error, adjusting analyses or design for error in an outcome variable, and categorizing continuous variables measured with error. Finally, we provide some advice for the often met situations where variables are known to be measured with substantial error, but there is only an external reference standard or partial (or no) information about the type or magnitude of the error.
Background: Despite reductions in exposure for workers and the general public, radon remains a leading cause of lung cancer. Prior studies of underground miners depended heavily upon information on deaths among miners employed in the early years of mine operations when exposures were high and tended to be poorly estimated. Objectives: To strengthen the basis for radiation protection, we report on the follow-up of workers employed in the later periods of mine operations for whom we have more accurate exposure information and for whom exposures tended to be accrued at intensities that are more comparable to contemporary settings. Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of cohort studies of lung cancer mortality among 57,873 male uranium miners in Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, and the United States, who were first employed in 1960 or later (thereby excluding miners employed during the periods of highest exposure and focusing on miners who tend to have higher quality assessments of radon progeny exposures). We derived estimates of excess relative rate per 100 working level months (ERR/100 WLM) for mortality from lung cancer. Results: The analysis included person-years of observation and 1,217 deaths due to lung cancer. The relative rate of lung cancer increased in a linear fashion with cumulative exposure to radon progeny (ERR/100 ; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.88). The association was modified by attained age, age at exposure, and annual exposure rate; for attained ages , the ERR/100 WLM was 8.38 (95% CI: 3.30, 18.99) among miners who were exposed at of age and at annual exposure rates of working levels. This association decreased with older attained ages, younger ages at exposure, and higher exposure rates. Discussion: Estimates of association between radon progeny exposure and lung cancer mortality among relatively contemporary miners are coherent with estimates used to inform current protection guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10669
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.