2019
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmy130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognizing misclassification bias in research and medical practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, potential misclassification bias could have impacted our results by incorrectly identifying abnormalities in brain perfusion. However, both sensitivity and specificity exceed 70% (84.2% 95% CI 60.4–96.6 and 77.3% 95% CI 62.2–88.5, respectively, for S100B, Table ) suggesting the impact of this bias on our study is minimal, as discussed in Pham et al 62 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 46%
“…Hence, potential misclassification bias could have impacted our results by incorrectly identifying abnormalities in brain perfusion. However, both sensitivity and specificity exceed 70% (84.2% 95% CI 60.4–96.6 and 77.3% 95% CI 62.2–88.5, respectively, for S100B, Table ) suggesting the impact of this bias on our study is minimal, as discussed in Pham et al 62 …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 46%
“…We ascertained the possible occurrence of selection bias [ 19 ], checking if compared groups (BD with vs. BD without ADHD) were similar in terms of main characteristics, i.e., age and gender, considering acceptable a difference of maximum 3 years in mean age and 5% in male gender proportion, respectively. In addition, we carried out an assessment of potential sources of information and misclassification bias [ 20 , 21 ]. First, we checked whether studies used adequate instruments to assess ADHD, such as the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA) [ 22 ] or the Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) [ 23 ] as well as other appropriate diagnostic interviews [ 24 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, there is always a risk of misclassification bias with retrospective data and automated data collection. 18 To mitigate this, we assessed the validity of our data abstraction tool, which is presented in ►Supplemental File S1 (available in the online version only). Most variables had >94% agreement between the data abstraction tool and manual abstraction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%