Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36718093›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2023

Simultaneous adjustment of uncontrolled confounding, selection bias and misclassification in multiple-bias modelling.

Paul Brendel, Aracelis Torres, Onyebuchi A Arah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Paul BrendelDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Aracelis TorresVerana Health, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Onyebuchi A ArahDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9067-1697

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI HIRAM BELTRAN-SANCHEZ · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdjusting for multiple biases usually involves adjusting for one bias at a time, with careful attention to the order in which these biases are adjusted. A novel, alternative approach to multiple-bias adjustment involves the simultaneous adjustment of all biases via imputation and/or regression weighting. The imputed value or weight corresponds to the probability of the missing data and serves to 'reconstruct' the unbiased data that would be observed based on the provided assumptions of the degree of bias.

methodsWe motivate and describe the steps necessary to implement this method. We also demonstrate the validity of this method through a simulation study with an exposure-outcome relationship that is biased by uncontrolled confounding, exposure misclassification, and selection bias.

resultsThe study revealed that a non-biased effect estimate can be obtained when correct bias parameters are applied. It also found that incorrect specification of every bias parameter by +/-25% still produced an effect estimate with less bias than the observed, biased effect.

conclusionsSimultaneous multi-bias analysis is a useful way of investigating and understanding how multiple sources of bias may affect naive effect estimates. This new method can be used to enhance the validity and transparency of real-world evidence obtained from observational, longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

Selection BiasBiasComputer SimulationHumansLongitudinal StudiesProbabilityconfoundingimputedinformation biasmis-specificationMulti-bias modellingparametersregression weightselection biassimulation

Identifiers

PMID36718093
PMCPMC10893963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.