PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7742401

Methodology to correct for differential misclassification.

W D Flanders·C D Drews·A S Kosinski
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Misclassification of exposure is a serious problem in epidemiology. Methods for addressing misclassification are available, but most are based on limiting assumptions such as availability of a "gold standard" measure of true exposure, or availability of two tests of exposure whose performance is nondifferential. In this paper, we discuss a method that allows the investigator to correct for differential misclassification in case-control studies. Our method only requires two potentially imperfect tests for measuring exposure. Importantly, the sensitivity and specificity of each test when applied to cases may differ from the sensitivity and specificity when applied to controls. The approach does require two subgroups of cases, such that each test's sensitivity and specificity is the same across these subgroups and requires analogous subgroups for controls. We exemplify our approach in several ways, using hypothetical data, using data from a case-control study of birth defects and service in Vietnam, and by a small Monte Carlo study. Finally, we discuss limitations of the method.

Explore related subjects

BiasCase-Control StudiesCongenital AbnormalitiesEnvironmental ExposureHumansMilitary PersonnelModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodOdds RatioSensitivity and SpecificityVietnamJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W D Flanders, C D Drews, A S Kosinski. 1995. Methodology to correct for differential misclassification.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199503000-00011

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↗
PubMed1999

Influence of sampling on estimates of clustering and recent transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis derived from DNA fingerprinting techniques.

The availability of DNA fingerprinting techniques for Mycobacterium tuberculosis has led to attempts to estimate the extent of recent transmission in populations, using the assumption that groups of tuberculosis patients with identical isolates ("clusters") are likely to reflect recently acquired infections. It is never possible to include all cases of tuberculosis in a given population in a study, and the proportion of isolates found to be clustered will depend on the completeness of the sampling. Using stochastic simulation models based on real and hypothetical populations, the authors demonstrate the influence of incomplete sampling on the estimates of clustering obtained. The results show that as the sampling fraction increases, the proportion of isolates identified as clustered also increases and the variance of the estimated proportion clustered decreases. Cluster size is also important: the underestimation of clustering for any given sampling fraction is greater, and the variability in the results obtained is larger, for populations with small clusters than for those with the same number of individuals arranged in large clusters. A considerable amount of caution should be used in interpreting the results of studies on clustering of M. tuberculosis isolates, particularly when sampling fractions are small.

Bias↗