Rose G Radin1,2, Kenneth J Rothman1,3, Elizabeth E Hatch1, Ellen M Mikkelsen4, Henrik T Sorensen1,4, Anders H Riis4, Matthew P Fox1,5, Lauren A Wise1,6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, North Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Center for Global Health and Development, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of fecundability often use retrospectively measured time-to-pregnancy (TTP), thereby introducing potential for recall error. Little is known about how recall error affects the bias and precision of the fecundability odds ratio (FOR) in such studies. METHODS: Using data from the Danish Snart-Gravid Study (2007-12), we quantified error for TTP recalled in the first trimester of pregnancy relative to prospectively measured TTP among 421 women who enrolled at the start of their pregnancy attempt and became pregnant within 12 months. We defined recall error as retrospectively measured TTP minus prospectively measured TTP. Using linear regression, we assessed mean differences in recall error by maternal characteristics. We evaluated the resulting bias in the FOR and 95% confidence interval (CI) using simulation analyses that compared corrected and uncorrected retrospectively measured TTP values. RESULTS: Recall error (mean = -0.11 months, 95% CI -0.25, 0.04) was not appreciably associated with maternal age, gravidity, or recent oral contraceptive use. Women with TTP > 2 months were more likely to underestimate their TTP than women with TTP ≤ 2 months (unadjusted mean difference in error: -0.40 months, 95% CI -0.71, -0.09). FORs of recent oral contraceptive use calculated from prospectively measured, retrospectively measured, and corrected TTPs were 0.82 (95% CI 0.67, 0.99), 0.74 (95% CI 0.61, 0.90), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.62, 0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Recall error was small on average among pregnancy planners who became pregnant within 12 months. Recall error biased the FOR of recent oral contraceptive use away from the null by 10%. Quantitative bias analysis of the FOR can help researchers quantify the bias from recall error.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of fecundability often use retrospectively measured time-to-pregnancy (TTP), thereby introducing potential for recall error. Little is known about how recall error affects the bias and precision of the fecundability odds ratio (FOR) in such studies. METHODS: Using data from the Danish Snart-Gravid Study (2007-12), we quantified error for TTP recalled in the first trimester of pregnancy relative to prospectively measured TTP among 421 women who enrolled at the start of their pregnancy attempt and became pregnant within 12 months. We defined recall error as retrospectively measured TTP minus prospectively measured TTP. Using linear regression, we assessed mean differences in recall error by maternal characteristics. We evaluated the resulting bias in the FOR and 95% confidence interval (CI) using simulation analyses that compared corrected and uncorrected retrospectively measured TTP values. RESULTS:Recall error (mean = -0.11 months, 95% CI -0.25, 0.04) was not appreciably associated with maternal age, gravidity, or recent oral contraceptive use. Women with TTP > 2 months were more likely to underestimate their TTP than women with TTP ≤ 2 months (unadjusted mean difference in error: -0.40 months, 95% CI -0.71, -0.09). FORs of recent oral contraceptive use calculated from prospectively measured, retrospectively measured, and corrected TTPs were 0.82 (95% CI 0.67, 0.99), 0.74 (95% CI 0.61, 0.90), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.62, 0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Recall error was small on average among pregnancy planners who became pregnant within 12 months. Recall error biased the FOR of recent oral contraceptive use away from the null by 10%. Quantitative bias analysis of the FOR can help researchers quantify the bias from recall error.
Authors: Ellen M Mikkelsen; Elizabeth E Hatch; Lauren A Wise; Kenneth J Rothman; Anders Riis; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Ellen M Mikkelsen; Anders H Riis; Lauren A Wise; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Maureen A Cooney; Germaine M Buck Louis; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Bridget M McGuiness; Courtney D Lynch Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Michael Joffe; Jane Key; Nicky Best; Niels Keiding; Thomas Scheike; Tina Kold Jensen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2005-06-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Melissa M Smarr; Katherine J Sapra; Alison Gemmill; Linda G Kahn; Lauren A Wise; Courtney D Lynch; Pam Factor-Litvak; Sunni L Mumford; Niels E Skakkebaek; Rémy Slama; Danelle T Lobdell; Joseph B Stanford; Tina Kold Jensen; Elizabeth Heger Boyle; Michael L Eisenberg; Paul J Turek; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Marie E Thoma; Germaine M Buck Louis Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Kathryn A McInerney; Elizabeth E Hatch; Amelia K Wesselink; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Lauren A Wise Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Jihye Park; Joseph B Stanford; Christina A Porucznik; Kylie Christensen; Karen C Schliep Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Elizabeth E Hatch; Lauren A Wise; Kenneth J Rothman; Veronica M Vieira; Ann Aschengrau Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: K A McInerney; K A Hahn; E E Hatch; E M Mikkelsen; A Z Steiner; K J Rothman; H T Sørensen; T M Snerum; L A Wise Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-04-15 Impact factor: 6.531