Brief Report: How far from non-differential does exposure or disease misclassification have to be to bias measures of association away from the null?

Anne M. Jurek, Sander Greenland, George Maldonado

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

93 Scopus citations

Abstract

A well-known heuristic in epidemiology is that non-differential exposure or disease misclassification biases the expected values of an estimator toward the null value. This heuristic works correctly only when additional conditions are met, such as independence of classification errors. We present examples to show that, even when the additional conditions are met, if the misclassification is only approximately non-differential, then bias is not guaranteed to be toward the null. In light of such examples, we advise that evaluation of misclassification should not be based on the assumption of exact non-differentiality unless the latter can be deduced logically from the facts of the situation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)382-385
Number of pages4
JournalInternational journal of epidemiology
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This study was supported in part by the Children’s Cancer Research Fund, Minneapolis, MN (to A.J.). We thank a reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Keywords

  • Exposure measurement
  • Misclassification
  • Odds ratio
  • Prevalence
  • Sensitivity analysis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Brief Report: How far from non-differential does exposure or disease misclassification have to be to bias measures of association away from the null?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this