ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2026
Exposure misclassification of self-reported vegetarian diet and its impact on health outcomes.
Article in International journal of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiterature around the health impact of a vegetarian diet is expanding, yet exposure measurement and its effect on the study results receive far less attention. The aim of our study was to show the effect of bias from exposure misclassification on the direction, amount, and uncertainty of study results.
methodsWe included 11 180 participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2007-10). The exposure was self-reported diet type (being vegetarian). Using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values as bias parameters, we quantified the effect of exposure misclassification in non-differential and differential scenarios. We compared conventional analysis with bias-adjusted results.
resultsAmong self-reported vegetarians (2.2%), more than half (68%) reported consuming meat, poultry, or fish in the 24-hour dietary recalls. The sensitivity of self-reported diet type was 32% (95% CI, 0.26-0.38) and the specificity was 98% (95% CI, 0.98-0.99). The exposure misclassification was differential. The quantitative bias analysis of differential exposure misclassification was more informative. Using positive and negative predictive values as bias parameters was helpful to avoid negative bias-adjusted cell counts.
conclusionAssessing the impact of exposure misclassification in the self-reported vegetarian diet on four health outcomes, our study demonstrates that quantitative bias analysis can help to make more plausible assumptions about the possible direction, strength, and uncertainty of bias and its impact on the effect estimates of conventional analysis. However, comparing different scenarios showed that the model assumptions play a key role in the informative value of quantitative bias analysis.
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.