ArticleGlobal epidemiology2024
Does adjustment for non-differential misclassification of dichotomous exposure induce positive bias if there is no true association?
Article in Global epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey of practices of handling exposure measurement errors in modern epidemiology: are the best practices in statistics being adopted by epidemiologists?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Does adjustment for non-differential misclassification of dichotomous exposure induce positive bias if there is no true association?Global epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article is a response to an off-the-record discussion that I had at an international meeting of epidemiologists more than decade ago. It centered on a concern, perhaps widely spread, that adjustment for exposure misclassification can induce a false positive result. I trace the possible history of this supposition and test it in a simulated case-control study under the assumption of non-differential misclassification of binary exposure, in which a Bayesian adjustment is applied. Probabilistic bias analysis is also briefly considered. The main conclusion is that adjustment for the presumed non-differential exposure misclassification of dichotomous does not "induce" positive associations, especially if the focus of the interpretation of the result is taken away from the point estimate. The misconception about positive bias induced by adjustment for exposure misclassification, if more clearly explained during the training of epidemiologists, may promote appropriate (and wider) use of the adjustment techniques. The simple message that can be derived from this paper is: "Exposure misclassification as a tractable problem that deserves much more attention than just a typical qualitative throw-away discussion".
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.