| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 132, No. 6: 1176-1184
Copyright © 1990 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
research-article |
THE EFFECTS OF MEASUREMENT ERRORS ON RELATWE RISK REGRESSIONS
From the School of Occupational Health, McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Reprint requests to Dr Ben G Armstrong, School of Occupational Health, McGill University, 1130 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1A3
This paper concerns the effects of random error in numerical measurements of risk factors (covanates) in relative risk regressions. When not dependent on outcome (nondifferential), such error usually attenuates relative risk estimates (shifts them toward one) and leads to spuriously narrow confidence intervals. The presence of measurement error also reduces precision of estimates and power of significance tests. However, significance levels obtained by using the approximate measurements are usually valid and as powerful as possible given the measurement error. The attenuation in risk estimate depends not only on the size (variance) of the measurement error, but also on its distributional form, on whether it is dependent on the true level of the risk factor (whether it is of "Berkson" type), on the variance and distributional form of true levels of the risk factor, on the functional form of the regression (exponential or linear), and on the confounding variables included in the model. Error in measuring confounding variables leads to loss of control of confounding, leaving residual bias. Uncomplicated techniques of correcting the effects of measurement error in simple models in which distributions are assumed normal are available in the statistical literature. For these corrections, information on measurement error variance is required. Some approaches appropriate for more general models have been proposed, but these appear to be insufficiently developed for routine application.
regression analysis; risk; statistics
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Ferrari, C. Friedenreich, and C. E. Matthews The Role of Measurement Error in Estimating Levels of Physical Activity Am. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2007; 166(7): 832 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Fewell, G. D. Smith, and J. A. C. Sterne Fewell et al. Respond to "Fuel for Debate" Am. J. Epidemiol., September 15, 2007; 166(6): 659 - 661. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Baglietto, D. R. English, J. L. Hopper, H. A. Morris, W. D. Tilley, and G. G. Giles Circulating Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Binding Protein-3 and the Risk of Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2007; 16(4): 763 - 768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H.-M. KIM, Y. YASUI, and I. BURSTYN Attenuation in Risk Estimates in Logistic and Cox Proportional-Hazards Models due to Group-Based Exposure Assessment Strategy Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2006; 50(6): 623 - 635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. D. Tronko, G. R. Howe, T. I. Bogdanova, A. C. Bouville, O. V. Epstein, A. B. Brill, I. A. Likhtarev, D. J. Fink, V. V. Markov, E. Greenebaum, et al. A Cohort Study of Thyroid Cancer and Other Thyroid Diseases After the Chornobyl Accident: Thyroid Cancer in Ukraine Detected During First Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst, July 5, 2006; 98(13): 897 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. BURSTYN, H-M. KIM, N. CHERRY, and Y. YASUI Metamodels of bias in Cox proportional-hazards and logistic regressions with heteroscedastic measurement error under group-level exposure assessment Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2006; 50(3): 271 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R McNamee Regression modelling and other methods to control confounding Occup. Environ. Med., July 1, 2005; 62(7): 500 - 506. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E Symanski, D A Savitz, and P C Singer Assessing spatial fluctuations, temporal variability, and measurement error in estimated levels of disinfection by-products in tap water: implications for exposure assessment Occup. Environ. Med., January 1, 2004; 61(1): 65 - 72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. SAULEAU, P. WILD, M. HOURS, A. LEPLAY, and A. BERGERET Comparison of Measurement Strategies for Prospective Occupational Epidemiology Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2003; 47(2): 101 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Richardson and A. Ciampi Effects of Exposure Measurement Error When an Exposure Variable Is Constrained by a Lower Limit Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2003; 157(4): 355 - 363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Teschke, A F Olshan, J L Daniels, A J De Roos, C G Parks, M Schulz, T L Vaughan, and H Kromhout Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2002; 59(9): 575 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|