Literature DB >> 25080530

Good practices for quantitative bias analysis.

Timothy L Lash1, Matthew P Fox2, Richard F MacLehose2, George Maldonado2, Lawrence C McCandless2, Sander Greenland2.   

Abstract

Quantitative bias analysis serves several objectives in epidemiological research. First, it provides a quantitative estimate of the direction, magnitude and uncertainty arising from systematic errors. Second, the acts of identifying sources of systematic error, writing down models to quantify them, assigning values to the bias parameters and interpreting the results combat the human tendency towards overconfidence in research results, syntheses and critiques and the inferences that rest upon them. Finally, by suggesting aspects that dominate uncertainty in a particular research result or topic area, bias analysis can guide efficient allocation of sparse research resources. The fundamental methods of bias analyses have been known for decades, and there have been calls for more widespread use for nearly as long. There was a time when some believed that bias analyses were rarely undertaken because the methods were not widely known and because automated computing tools were not readily available to implement the methods. These shortcomings have been largely resolved. We must, therefore, contemplate other barriers to implementation. One possibility is that practitioners avoid the analyses because they lack confidence in the practice of bias analysis. The purpose of this paper is therefore to describe what we view as good practices for applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiological data, directed towards those familiar with the methods. We focus on answering questions often posed to those of us who advocate incorporation of bias analysis methods into teaching and research. These include the following. When is bias analysis practical and productive? How does one select the biases that ought to be addressed? How does one select a method to model biases? How does one assign values to the parameters of a bias model? How does one present and interpret a bias analysis?. We hope that our guide to good practices for conducting and presenting bias analyses will encourage more widespread use of bias analysis to estimate the potential magnitude and direction of biases, as well as the uncertainty in estimates potentially influenced by the biases.
© The Author 2014; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Epidemiological biases; analysis; best practice

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25080530     DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  142 in total

1.  Socioeconomic disparities in SUDEP in the US.

Authors:  Esma Cihan; Dale C Hesdorffer; Michael Brandsoy; Ling Li; David R Fowler; Jason K Graham; Michael Karlovich; Elizabeth J Donner; Orrin Devinsky; Daniel Friedman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  Identifying and Addressing Confounding Bias in Violence Prevention Research.

Authors:  Shabbar I Ranapurwala
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2019-04-26

Review 3.  A primer on quantitative bias analysis with positive predictive values in research using electronic health data.

Authors:  Sophia R Newcomer; Stan Xu; Martin Kulldorff; Matthew F Daley; Bruce Fireman; Jason M Glanz
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Validation of self-reported occupational noise exposure in participants of a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma.

Authors:  Isabelle Deltour; Amélie Massardier-Pilonchery; Brigitte Schlehofer; Klaus Schlaefer; Martine Hours; Joachim Schüz
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 5.  Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: review of current practice and recommendations.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Veronika Deffner; Ruth H Keogh; Janet A Tooze; Kevin W Dodd; Helmut Küchenhoff; Victor Kipnis; Laurence S Freedman
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 6.  Understanding and Mitigating the Replication Crisis, for Environmental Epidemiologists.

Authors:  Scott M Bartell
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2019-03

7.  Commentary: Tobacco smoking and asthma: multigenerational effects, epigenetics and multilevel causal mediation analysis.

Authors:  Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Learning About Missing Data Mechanisms in Electronic Health Records-based Research: A Survey-based Approach.

Authors:  Sebastien Haneuse; Andy Bogart; Ina Jazic; Emily O Westbrook; Denise Boudreau; Mary Kay Theis; Greg E Simon; David Arterburn
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Quantitative bias analysis in an asthma study of rescue-recovery workers and volunteers from the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks.

Authors:  Anne M Jurek; George Maldonado
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 3.797

10.  STRATOS guidance document on measurement error and misclassification of variables in observational epidemiology: Part 2-More complex methods of adjustment and advanced topics.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.