Literature DB >> 33778845

Bias Analysis Gone Bad.

Timothy L Lash, Thomas P Ahern, Lindsay J Collin, Matthew P Fox, Richard F MacLehose.   

Abstract

Quantitative bias analysis comprises the tools used to estimate the direction, magnitude, and uncertainty from systematic errors affecting epidemiologic research. Despite the availability of methods and tools, and guidance for good practices, few reports of epidemiologic research incorporate quantitative estimates of bias impacts. The lack of familiarity with bias analysis allows for the possibility of misuse, which is likely most often unintentional but could occasionally include intentional efforts to mislead. We identified 3 examples of suboptimal bias analysis, one for each common bias. For each, we describe the original research and its bias analysis, compare the bias analysis with good practices, and describe how the bias analysis and research findings might have been improved. We assert no motive to the suboptimal bias analysis by the original authors. Common shortcomings in the examples were lack of a clear bias model, computed example, and computing code; poor selection of the values assigned to the bias model's parameters; and little effort to understand the range of uncertainty associated with the bias. Until bias analysis becomes more common, community expectations for the presentation, explanation, and interpretation of bias analyses will remain unstable. Attention to good practices should improve quality, avoid errors, and discourage manipulation.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epidemiologic bias; epidemiologic methods; quantitative bias analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33778845      PMCID: PMC8484933          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwab072

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


  35 in total

1.  Semi-automated sensitivity analysis to assess systematic errors in observational data.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Aliza K Fink
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  A method to automate probabilistic sensitivity analyses of misclassified binary variables.

Authors:  Matthew P Fox; Timothy L Lash; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Antidepressant use and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Chloe Chien; Christopher I Li; Susan R Heckbert; Kathleen E Malone; Denise M Boudreau; Janet R Daling
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2005-12-02       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Bayesian adjustment for exposure misclassification in case-control studies.

Authors:  Rong Chu; Paul Gustafson; Nhu Le
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Limitations and Misinterpretations of E-Values for Sensitivity Analyses of Observational Studies.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Yuan Jin Tan; Manuel R Blum
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Hierarchical Semi-Bayes Methods for Misclassification in Perinatal Epidemiology.

Authors:  Richard F MacLehose; Lisa M Bodnar; Craig S Meyer; Haitao Chu; Timothy L Lash
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Sensitivity analysis for misclassification in logistic regression via likelihood methods and predictive value weighting.

Authors:  Robert H Lyles; Ji Lin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Are all biases missing data problems?

Authors:  Chanelle J Howe; Lauren E Cain; Joseph W Hogan
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2015-07-12

9.  Use of E-values for addressing confounding in observational studies-an empirical assessment of the literature.

Authors:  Manuel R Blum; Yuan Jin Tan; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  Commentary: Developing best-practice guidelines for the reporting of E-values.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Maya B Mathur
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 7.196

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.