Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37336529›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2023

Exploring regression dilution bias using repeat measurements of 2858 variables in ≤49 000 UK Biobank participants.

Charlotte E Rutter, Louise A C Millard, Maria Carolina Borges, Deborah A Lawlor

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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

4 authors.

Charlotte E RutterMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9823-7932
Louise A C MillardMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4787-8411
Maria Carolina BorgesMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7785-4547
Deborah A LawlorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6793-2262

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/1996001/9454British Heart Foundation CH/F/20/90003Medical Research Council MC_PC_15067Medical Research Council MC_PC_17224Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_PC_21035Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MR/N013638/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasurement error in exposures and confounders can bias exposure-outcome associations but is rarely considered. We aimed to assess random measurement error of all continuous variables in UK Biobank and explore approaches to mitigate its impact on exposure-outcome associations.

methodsRandom measurement error was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all continuous variables with repeat measures. Regression calibration was used to correct for random error in exposures and confounders, using the associations of red blood cell distribution width (RDW), C-reactive protein (CRP) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] with mortality as illustrative examples.

resultsThe 2858 continuous variables with repeat measures varied in sample size from 109 to 49 121. They fell into three groups: (i) baseline visit [529 variables; median (interquartile range) ICC = 0.64 (0.57, 0.83)]; (ii) online diet by 24-h recall [22 variables; 0.35 (0.30, 0.40)] and (iii) imaging measures [2307 variables; 0.85 (0.73, 0.94)]. Highest ICCs were for anthropometric and medical history measures, and lowest for dietary and heart magnetic resonance imaging.The ICCs (95% confidence interval) for RDW, CRP and 25(OH)D were 0.52 (0.51, 0.53), 0.29 (0.27, 0.30) and 0.55 (0.54, 0.56), respectively. Higher RDW and levels of CRP were associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality, and higher concentration of 25(OH)D with lower risk. After correction for random measurement error in the main exposure, the associations all strengthened. Confounder correction did not influence estimates.

conclusionsRandom measurement error varies widely and is often non-negligible. For UK Biobank we provide relevant statistics and adaptable code to help other researchers explore and correct for this.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksDietBiasHumansUnited Kingdomattenuation by errorsconcordancerandom measurement errorrandom variabilityRegression dilution biasUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID37336529
PMCPMC10555784

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.