ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2021
Examining the robustness of observational associations to model, measurement and sampling uncertainty with the vibration of effects framework.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale assessment of socioeconomic, demographic and health system structures with US county excess mortality, 2020-2024.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Second- and Third-Generation BCR-ABL Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and the Risk of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Prevalent New-User Design.Circulation · 2026Article
- Article
- Illustrating an Adaptive Prespecification Framework for Observational Research: Target Trial Emulations Comparing Immunomodulator Treatments for COVID-19.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the agreement between sensitivity and primary analyses in observational studies using routinely collected healthcare data: a meta-epidemiology study.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Why are different estimates of the effective reproductive number so different? A case study on COVID-19 in Germany.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Excess death estimates from multiverse analysis in 2009-2021.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Prioritization of COVID-19 risk factors in July 2020 and February 2021 in the UK.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences.Public health reviews · 2023Review
- Systematically assessing microbiome-disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Gene-level metagenomic architectures across diseases yield high-resolution microbiome diagnostic indicators.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe results of studies on observational associations may vary depending on the study design and analysis choices as well as due to measurement error. It is important to understand the relative contribution of different factors towards generating variable results, including low sample sizes, researchers' flexibility in model choices, and measurement error in variables of interest and adjustment variables.
methodsWe define sampling, model and measurement uncertainty, and extend the concept of vibration of effects in order to study these three types of uncertainty in a common framework. In a practical application, we examine these types of uncertainty in a Cox model using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. In addition, we analyse the behaviour of sampling, model and measurement uncertainty for varying sample sizes in a simulation study.
resultsAll types of uncertainty are associated with a potentially large variability in effect estimates. Measurement error in the variable of interest attenuates the true effect in most cases, but can occasionally lead to overestimation. When we consider measurement error in both the variable of interest and adjustment variables, the vibration of effects are even less predictable as both systematic under- and over-estimation of the true effect can be observed. The results on simulated data show that measurement and model vibration remain non-negligible even for large sample sizes.
conclusionSampling, model and measurement uncertainty can have important consequences for the stability of observational associations. We recommend systematically studying and reporting these types of uncertainty, and comparing them in a common framework.
Indexed as
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.