Literature DB >> 1877603

Blind assignment of exposure does not always prevent differential misclassification.

S Wacholder1, M Dosemeci, J H Lubin.   

Abstract

The authors argue that one can never be certain whether an exposure variable which is measured with error is subject to differential misclassification in either a case-control study or a cohort study. They present hypothetic examples that demonstrate that even when misclassification is nondifferential in a 2 x 3 table, the observed odds ratios in the 2 x 2 table created by collapsing over two exposure levels can be either in the opposite direction from or more extreme than the odds ratio that would be obtained if exposures were classified correctly. The anomalies are explained by the observation that the 2 x 2 tables exhibit differential misclassification. In general, collapsing over categories which have different risks of disease and different probabilities of exposure misclassification can induce differential misclassification and even nonconservative estimates of relative risk. Collapsing of exposure levels can occur in the analysis or at the exposure assessment stage. Since indistinguishable categories can be collapsed implicitly, blind assessment of exposure, i.e., assignment without knowledge of disease status, does not guarantee that misclassification is nondifferential.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1877603     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  17 in total

Review 1.  Smoothing in occupational cohort studies: an illustration based on penalised splines.

Authors:  E A Eisen; I Agalliu; S W Thurston; B A Coull; H Checkoway
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  The impact of exposure categorisation for grouped analyses of cohort data.

Authors:  D B Richardson; D Loomis
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Exposure-measurement error is frequently ignored when interpreting epidemiologic study results.

Authors:  Anne M Jurek; George Maldonado; Sander Greenland; Timothy R Church
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Correcting for bias in relative risk estimates due to exposure measurement error: a case study of occupational exposure to antineoplastics in pharmacists.

Authors:  D Spiegelman; B Valanis
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Potential sensitivity of bias analysis results to incorrect assumptions of nondifferential or differential binary exposure misclassification.

Authors:  Candice Y Johnson; W Dana Flanders; Matthew J Strickland; Margaret A Honein; Penelope P Howards
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Incorporating individual-level distributions of exposure error in epidemiologic analyses: an example using arsenic in drinking water and bladder cancer.

Authors:  Jaymie R Meliker; Pierre Goovaerts; Geoffrey M Jacquez; Jerome O Nriagu
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  Non-differential misclassification and bias towards the null: a clarification.

Authors:  S Wacholder; P Hartge; J H Lubin; M Dosemeci
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 8.  STRATOS guidance document on measurement error and misclassification of variables in observational epidemiology: Part 1-Basic theory and simple methods of adjustment.

Authors:  Ruth H Keogh; Pamela A Shaw; Paul Gustafson; Raymond J Carroll; Veronika Deffner; Kevin W Dodd; Helmut Küchenhoff; Janet A Tooze; Michael P Wallace; Victor Kipnis; Laurence S Freedman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Dietary Polyunsaturated Fat Intake in Relation to Head and Neck, Esophageal, and Gastric Cancer Incidence in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study.

Authors:  Shawn A Zamani; Kathleen M McClain; Barry I Graubard; Linda M Liao; Christian C Abnet; Michael B Cook; Jessica L Petrick
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  The effect of uncertainty in exposure estimation on the exposure-response relation between 1,3-butadiene and leukemia.

Authors:  John J Graff; Nalini Sathiakumar; Maurizio Macaluso; George Maldonado; Robert Matthews; Elizabeth Delzell
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.