ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2026
The Invisible Burden: Examining the Impact of Exposure Misclassification in Epidemiologic Analyses of Uterine Fibroids.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUterine fibroids, a common gynaecologic condition, are often underdiagnosed, potentially biasing results in epidemiologic studies due to measurement error.
objectivesTo examine how varying sensitivity in detecting uterine fibroids impacts effect estimates, using the association with hypertension onset as an example.
methodsThree simulation studies were conducted (N = 100,000), considering true population prevalences of uterine fibroids of 5%, 20% and 60%. The first study varied detection sensitivity between 0% and 100%. The second examined differential sensitivity by symptom status (asymptomatic vs. symptomatic). The third assessed differential sensitivity by racialised groups. Specificity remained fixed at 90%, and true risk ratios (RRs) for the association with hypertension were set at 1.3 and 1.8.
resultsDecreasing sensitivity biased results towards the null, with low-sensitivity methods (e.g., self-report) showing the largest bias and high-sensitivity methods (e.g., transvaginal ultrasonography) the least bias. At low fibroid prevalence (5%), even gold-standard ascertainment introduced bias due to imperfect specificity, whereas this concern diminished at higher prevalence. Assuming a dose-response relationship between fibroids and hypertension based on symptom status, results remained biased towards the null unless sensitivity was 100% and prevalence was high (60%); bias was most pronounced at low prevalence. When only symptomatic fibroids were associated with hypertension, increasing sensitivity biased results away from the null by capturing more asymptomatic cases. Studies using low-sensitivity methods may fail to identify a true effect among Black females while identifying it among White females, potentially exacerbating disparities. Detection bias, where those with fibroids are more likely to have hypertension detected, could result in bias away from the null.
conclusionsUnderdiagnosis of uterine fibroids can bias results towards the null, particularly with self-report or modest effect estimates, potentially obscuring true effects. When only symptomatic fibroids were associated with the outcome, the bias was away from the null. Results varied by symptom status and race, highlighting the need to prioritise sensitive ascertainment methods, employ sensitivity analyses and improve reliability across diverse gynecologic conditions and health disparities.
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.