Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29088358›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2018

Negative control exposure studies in the presence of measurement error: implications for attempted effect estimate calibration.

Eleanor Sanderson, Corrie Macdonald-Wallis, George Davey Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Negative controls and how to use them: a guidance paper.International journal of epidemiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exposure to daily mean and maximum 1-hour PMEnvironmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Causal Estimation of Long-term Intervention Cost-effectiveness Using Genetic Instrumental Variables: An Application to Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eleanor SandersonMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Corrie Macdonald-WallisMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Negative control exposure studies are increasingly being used in epidemiological studies to strengthen causal inference regarding an exposure-outcome association when unobserved confounding is thought to be present. Negative control exposure studies contrast the magnitude of association of the negative control, which has no causal effect on the outcome but is associated with the unmeasured confounders in the same way as the exposure, with the magnitude of the association of the exposure with the outcome. A markedly larger effect of the exposure on the outcome than the negative control on the outcome strengthens inference that the exposure has a causal effect on the outcome. Methods: We investigate the effect of measurement error in the exposure and negative control variables on the results obtained from a negative control exposure study. We do this in models with continuous and binary exposure and negative control variables using analysis of the bias of the estimated coefficients and Monte Carlo simulations. Results: Our results show that measurement error in either the exposure or negative control variables can bias the estimated results from the negative control exposure study. Conclusions: Measurement error is common in the variables used in epidemiological studies; these results show that negative control exposure studies cannot be used to precisely determine the size of the effect of the exposure variable, or adequately adjust for unobserved confounding; however, they can be used as part of a body of evidence to aid inference as to whether a causal effect of the exposure on the outcome is present.

Indexed as

BiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicEpidemiologic StudiesCausalityHumans

Identifiers

PMID29088358
PMCPMC5913619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.