Literature DB >> 34664653

Monte Carlo Simulation Approaches for Quantitative Bias Analysis: A Tutorial.

Hailey R Banack, Eleanor Hayes-Larson, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda.   

Abstract

Quantitative bias analysis can be used to empirically assess how far study estimates are from the truth (i.e., an estimate that is free of bias). These methods can be used to explore the potential impact of confounding bias, selection bias (collider stratification bias), and information bias. Quantitative bias analysis includes methods that can be used to check the robustness of study findings to multiple types of bias and methods that use simulation studies to generate data and understand the hypothetical impact of specific types of bias in a simulated data set. In this article, we review 2 strategies for quantitative bias analysis: 1) traditional probabilistic quantitative bias analysis and 2) quantitative bias analysis with generated data. An important difference between the 2 strategies relates to the type of data (real vs. generated data) used in the analysis. Monte Carlo simulations are used in both approaches, but the simulation process is used for different purposes in each. For both approaches, we outline and describe the steps required to carry out the quantitative bias analysis and also present a bias-analysis tutorial demonstrating how both approaches can be applied in the context of an analysis for selection bias. Our goal is to highlight the utility of quantitative bias analysis for practicing epidemiologists and increase the use of these methods in the epidemiologic literature.
© 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:  Monte Carlo sampling; bias analysis; confounding; measurement error; misclassification; selection bias; simulation study

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34664653      PMCID: PMC9005059          DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxab012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiol Rev        ISSN: 0193-936X            Impact factor:   4.280


  42 in total

1.  Proper interpretation of non-differential misclassification effects: expectations vs observations.

Authors:  Anne M Jurek; Sander Greenland; George Maldonado; Timothy R Church
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-03-31       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  The Monte Carlo method.

Authors:  N METROPOLIS; S ULAM
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  1949-09       Impact factor: 5.033

3.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.

Authors:  S Greenland; J Pearl; J M Robins
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 7.196

5.  All your data are always missing: incorporating bias due to measurement error into the potential outcomes framework.

Authors:  Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 6.  Investigating and Remediating Selection Bias in Geriatrics Research: The Selection Bias Toolkit.

Authors:  Hailey R Banack; Jay S Kaufman; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Bruce R Troen; Steven D Stovitz
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Good practices for quantitative bias analysis.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Matthew P Fox; Richard F MacLehose; George Maldonado; Lawrence C McCandless; Sander Greenland
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  A nearly unavoidable mechanism for collider bias with index-event studies.

Authors:  W Dana Flanders; Ronald C Eldridge; William McClellan
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.