Skip Navigation



American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published online on September 19, 2006
American Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/aje/kwj327
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
164/11/1126    most recent
kwj327v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Howards, P. P.
Right arrow Articles by Poole, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Howards, P. P.
Right arrow Articles by Poole, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Copyright © 2006 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved; printed in U.S.A.
Received October 31, 2005
Accepted April 28, 2006

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Misclassification of Gestational Age in the Study of Spontaneous Abortion

Penelope P. Howards 1 *, Irva Hertz-Picciotto 2, Clarice R. Weinberg 3, and Charles Poole 4

1 Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD
2 Department of Public Health Sciences, Divisions of Environmental and Occupational Health and Epidemiology, University of California, Davis, CA
3 Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC
4 Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Penelope P. Howards, E-mail: howardsp{at}mail.nih.gov


  Abstract

Most studies of spontaneous abortion are subject to left truncation, because conception is not observed and thus pregnant women are enrolled postconception. Cox regression can account for left truncation but uses gestational age data, which may be inaccurate. Dating is affected by reporting errors and variability in the day of ovulation. These errors may be differential by outcome, because gestational ages are more likely to be clinically corrected in continuing pregnancies than in pregnancies ending in spontaneous abortion. Errors may be differential by exposure status as well, if exposures affect the time of ovulation. The authors designed a simulation to examine bias caused by errors in gestational age. Pregnancies were assigned true and alternative gestational ages using different assumptions about random reporting error and error due to variation in the time between the last menstrual period and ovulation. In separate scenarios, the errors were differential by outcome, differential by exposure, differential by both exposure and outcome, or nondifferential. Hazard ratios were compared using accurate versus erroneous gestational ages. For proportional hazards, bias was only introduced when the error in gestational age was differential by exposure status. Bias was greatest when the magnitude of error for pregnancies at higher risk was much larger than that for pregnancies at lower risk.

Keywords: abortion; spontaneous; bias (epidemiology); gestational age; pregnancy; proportional hazards models.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A.S. Khashan, R. McNamee, K.M. Abel, P.B. Mortensen, L.C. Kenny, M.G. Pedersen, R.T. Webb, and P.N. Baker
Rates of preterm birth following antenatal maternal exposure to severe life events: a population-based cohort study
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2009; 24(2): 429 - 437.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.