PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16435337

Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.

Ofer Harel·Xiao-Hua Zhou
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the case in which all subjects are screened using a common test and only a subset of these subjects are tested using a golden standard test, it is well documented that there is a risk for bias, called verification bias. When the test has only two levels (e.g. positive and negative) and we are trying to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the test, we are actually constructing a confidence interval for a binomial proportion. Since it is well documented that this estimation is not trivial even with complete data, we adopt multiple imputation framework for verification bias problem. We propose several imputation procedures for this problem and compare different methods of estimation. We show that our imputation methods are better than the existing methods with regard to nominal coverage and confidence interval length.

Explore related subjects

BiasBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationConfidence IntervalsData Interpretation, StatisticalDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsRadionuclide ImagingSensitivity and SpecificityTransilluminationComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ofer Harel, Xiao-Hua Zhou. 2006-11-30. Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2494

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2007

A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.

For random effects meta-analysis, seven different estimators of the heterogeneity variance are compared and assessed using a simulation study. The seven estimators are the variance component type estimator (VC), the method of moments estimator (MM), the maximum likelihood estimator (ML), the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML), the empirical Bayes estimator (EB), the model error variance type estimator (MV), and a variation of the MV estimator (MVvc). The performance of the estimators is compared in terms of both bias and mean squared error, using Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that the REML and especially the ML and MM estimators are not accurate, having large biases unless the true heterogeneity variance is small. The VC estimator tends to overestimate the heterogeneity variance in general, but is quite accurate when the number of studies is large. The MV estimator is not a good estimator when the heterogeneity variance is small to moderate, but it is reasonably accurate when the heterogeneity variance is large. The MVvc estimator is an improved estimator compared to the MV estimator, especially for small to moderate values of the heterogeneity variance. The two estimators MVvc and EB are found to be the most accurate in general, particularly when the heterogeneity variance is moderate to large.

Bias↗
PubMed2007

Improving point predictions of random effects for subjects at high risk.

The prediction of random effects corresponding to subject-specific characteristics (e.g. means or rates of change) can be very useful in medical and epidemiologic research. At times, one may be most interested in obtaining accurate and/or precise predictions for subjects whose characteristic places them in a tail of the distribution. While the typical posterior mean predictor dominates others in terms of overall mean squared error of prediction (MSEP), its tendency to 'overshrink' has motivated research into alternatives emphasizing other criteria. Here, we specifically target MSEP within a certain region (e.g. above a known cut-off for high risk or a specified percentile of the random effect distribution), and we consider minimizing this quantity with and without constraints on overall MSEP efficiency. We use the normal-theory random intercept model to derive prediction methods with potential to yield markedly better performance for subjects in the specified region, given a well-controlled and (if desired) modest concession of overall MSEP. Criteria geared toward classification as well as overall and regional prediction unbiasedness are also provided. We evaluate the proposed techniques and illustrate them using repeated measures data on fasting blood glucose from type 2 diabetes patients. A simulation study verifies that theoretical properties and relative performances of the proposed predictors are essentially maintained when calculating them in practice based on estimated mixed linear model parameters. Straightforward extensions to incorporate covariates and additional random effects are briefly outlined.

Bias↗