PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8134667

[Measurement errors and linear regression].

Abstract

The consequences of a measurement error of known variance in the explanatory variable of a linear regression were assessed. On the average, the ordinary least squares (OLS) method underestimated the regression slope, the bias increasing with the variance of the measurement error and the strength of the relationship. Simulation results showed that the corrected-for-the-error estimate slightly overestimated the slope, the bias increasing with the variance of the measurement error and the strength of the relationship, but rapidly decreasing when the number of observations increased. In all cases the corrected estimate has a larger variance than the OLS estimate, Nevertheless, the mean square deviation of the corrected estimate to the "true" slope value can be smaller than the OLS one, even for a relatively small number of observations (< or = 100). In those conditions, the corrected estimate might be preferred when a "good estimation" of the regression slope is needed. Whereas a measurement error in the dependent variable, does not bias the slope estimator, when it is independent of the error in the explanatory variable, this is not the case when both measurement errors are correlated. An example of the need to correct for such a correlation is given.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Marques-Vidal, R Rakotovao, P Ducimetière. 1994. [Measurement errors and linear regression].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8134667/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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