Timo B Brakenhoff1, Marian Mitroiu2, Ruth H Keogh3, Karel G M Moons2, Rolf H H Groenwold2, Maarten van Smeden2. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.b.brakenhoff-2@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In medical research, covariates (e.g., exposure and confounder variables) are often measured with error. While it is well accepted that this introduces bias and imprecision in exposure-outcome relations, it is unclear to what extent such issues are currently considered in research practice. The objective was to study common practices regarding covariate measurement error via a systematic review of general medicine and epidemiology literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Original research published in 2016 in 12 high impact journals was full-text searched for phrases relating to measurement error. Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals. Our systematic review highlights the need for increased awareness about the possible impact of covariate measurement error. Additionally, guidance on the use of measurement error correction methods is necessary.
OBJECTIVES: In medical research, covariates (e.g., exposure and confounder variables) are often measured with error. While it is well accepted that this introduces bias and imprecision in exposure-outcome relations, it is unclear to what extent such issues are currently considered in research practice. The objective was to study common practices regarding covariate measurement error via a systematic review of general medicine and epidemiology literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Original research published in 2016 in 12 high impact journals was full-text searched for phrases relating to measurement error. Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals. Our systematic review highlights the need for increased awareness about the possible impact of covariate measurement error. Additionally, guidance on the use of measurement error correction methods is necessary.
Authors: Gabriel K Innes; Fiona Bhondoekhan; Bryan Lau; Alden L Gross; Derek K Ng; Alison G Abraham Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 4.280
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
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
Authors: Kurinchi S Gurusamy; David Moher; Marilena Loizidou; Irfan Ahmed; Marc T Avey; Carly C Barron; Brian Davidson; Miriam Dwek; Christian Gluud; Gavin Jell; Kiran Katakam; Joshua Montroy; Timothy D McHugh; Nicola J Osborne; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga; Kees van Laarhoven; Jan Vollert; Manoj Lalu Journal: PeerJ Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Linda Nab; Maarten van Smeden; Renée de Mutsert; Frits R Rosendaal; Rolf H H Groenwold Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 5.363