ArticleBMC proceedings2009
Genetic association studies and the effect of misclassification and selection bias in putative confounders.
Article in BMC proceedings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The emerging landscape of health research based on biobanks linked to electronic health records: Existing resources, statistical challenges, and potential opportunities.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- Variants in genes belonging to the fibroblast growth factor family are associated with lower extremity amputation in non-Hispanic whites: Findings from the chronic renal insufficiency cohort study.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2016Article
- Analysis of binary responses with outcome-specific misclassification probability in genome-wide association studies.The application of clinical genetics · 2016Article
- Article
- Phenotype definition and development--contributions from Group 7.Genetic epidemiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic epidemiology studies often adjust for numerous potential confounders, yet the influences of confounder misclassification and selection bias are rarely considered. We used simulated data to evaluate the effect of confounder misclassification and selection bias in a case-control study of incident myocardial infarction. We show that putative confounders traditionally included in genetic association studies do not alter effect estimates, even when excessive levels of misclassification are incorporated. Conversely, selection bias resulting from covariates affected by the single-nucleotide polymorphism of interest can bias effect estimates upward or downward. These results support careful consideration of how well a study population represents the target population because selection bias may result even when associations are modest.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.