Po-Huang Chyou1. 1. Biostatistics, Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, 1000 North Oak Avenue, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA. chyou.po-huang@mcrf.mfdclin.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case-control study is still one of the most commonly used study designs in epidemiological research. Misclassification of case-control status remains a significant issue because it will bias the results of a case-control study. There exist two types of misclassification, differential versus nondifferential. It is commonly accepted that nondifferential misclassification will bias the results of the study towards the null hypothesis. Conversely, no reports have assessed the impact and direction of differential misclassification on odds ratio (OR) estimate. The goal of the present study is to demonstrate by statistical derivation that patterns exist on the bias induced by differential misclassification. METHODS: Based on a 2 x 2 case-control study design, we derive the odds ratio without misclassification, and those with misclassification according to: (1) controls are misclassified as cases by exposure status; (2) cases are misclassified as controls by exposure status; and (3) both controls and cases are misclassified by exposure status simultaneously. Furthermore, mathematical derivations are shown for each of the ratios of the two odds ratios with and without misclassification. These methods are carried out by simulation analyses. RESULTS: Simulation analyses show that quite a number of biased odds ratios tend to move away from the null hypothesis and result in approaching zero or infinity with increasing proportion of misclassification among cases, controls, or both. These patterns are associated with the exposure status and the values of unbiased odds ratio (<1, 1, or >1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, unlike nondifferential misclassification, differential misclassification of case-control status in a case-control study may not weaken the exposure-outcome association towarding the null hypothesis. Care needs to be taken for interpreting the results of a case-control study when there exists differential misclassification bias, a practical issue in epidemiological research.
BACKGROUND: Case-control study is still one of the most commonly used study designs in epidemiological research. Misclassification of case-control status remains a significant issue because it will bias the results of a case-control study. There exist two types of misclassification, differential versus nondifferential. It is commonly accepted that nondifferential misclassification will bias the results of the study towards the null hypothesis. Conversely, no reports have assessed the impact and direction of differential misclassification on odds ratio (OR) estimate. The goal of the present study is to demonstrate by statistical derivation that patterns exist on the bias induced by differential misclassification. METHODS: Based on a 2 x 2 case-control study design, we derive the odds ratio without misclassification, and those with misclassification according to: (1) controls are misclassified as cases by exposure status; (2) cases are misclassified as controls by exposure status; and (3) both controls and cases are misclassified by exposure status simultaneously. Furthermore, mathematical derivations are shown for each of the ratios of the two odds ratios with and without misclassification. These methods are carried out by simulation analyses. RESULTS: Simulation analyses show that quite a number of biased odds ratios tend to move away from the null hypothesis and result in approaching zero or infinity with increasing proportion of misclassification among cases, controls, or both. These patterns are associated with the exposure status and the values of unbiased odds ratio (<1, 1, or >1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, unlike nondifferential misclassification, differential misclassification of case-control status in a case-control study may not weaken the exposure-outcome association towarding the null hypothesis. Care needs to be taken for interpreting the results of a case-control study when there exists differential misclassification bias, a practical issue in epidemiological research.
Authors: Elva Jiménez-Hernández; Arturo Fajardo-Gutiérrez; Juan Carlos Núñez-Enriquez; Jorge Alfonso Martín-Trejo; Laura Eugenia Espinoza-Hernández; Janet Flores-Lujano; José Arellano-Galindo; Aurora Medina-Sanson; Rogelio Paredes-Aguilera; Laura Elizabeth Merino-Pasaye; Martha Margarita Velázquez-Aviña; José Refugio Torres-Nava; Rosa Martha Espinosa-Elizondo; Raquel Amador-Sánchez; Juan José Dosta-Herrera; Javier Anastacio Mondragón-García; Heriberto Valdés-Guzmán; Laura Mejía-Pérez; Gilberto Espinoza-Anrubio; María Minerva Paz-Bribiesca; Perla Salcedo-Lozada; Rodolfo Ángel Landa-García; Rosario Ramírez-Colorado; Luis Hernández-Mora; María Luisa Pérez-Saldivar; Marlene Santamaría-Ascencio; Anselmo López-Loyola; Arturo Hermilo Godoy-Esquivel; Luis Ramiro García-López; Alison Ireri Anguiano-Ávalos; Karina Mora-Rico; Alejandro Castañeda-Echevarría; Roberto Rodríguez-Jiménez; José Alberto Cibrian-Cruz; Karina Anastacia Solís-Labastida; Rocío Cárdenas-Cardos; Armando Martínez-Avalos; Luz Victoria Flores-Villegas; José Gabriel Peñaloza-González; Ana Itamar González-Ávila; Martha Beatriz Altamirano-García; Norma López-Santiago; Martin Sánchez-Ruiz; Roberto Rivera-Luna; Luis Rodolfo Rodríguez-Villalobos; Francisco Hernández-Pérez; Jaime Ángel Olvera-Durán; Luis Rey García-Cortés; Minerva Mata-Rocha; Omar Alejandro Sepúlveda-Robles; Cesar Raúl González-Bonilla; Vilma Carolina Bekker-Méndez; Silvia Jiménez-Morales; Haydee Rosas-Vargas; Juan Manuel Mejía-Aranguré Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Dina Goodman; Mary E Crocker; Farhan Pervaiz; Eric D McCollum; Kyle Steenland; Suzanne M Simkovich; Catherine H Miele; Laura L Hammitt; Phabiola Herrera; Heather J Zar; Harry Campbell; Claudio F Lanata; John P McCracken; Lisa M Thompson; Ghislaine Rosa; Miles A Kirby; Sarada Garg; Gurusamy Thangavel; Vijayalakshmi Thanasekaraan; Kalpana Balakrishnan; Carina King; Thomas Clasen; William Checkley Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Z Samaan; S Garasia; H C Gerstein; J C Engert; V Mohan; R Diaz; S S Anand; D Meyre Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Jan Beyea; Steven D Stellman; Susan Teitelbaum; Irina Mordukhovich; Marilie D Gammon Journal: Environ Health Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 5.984