Prepregnancy body mass index and spina bifida: Potential contributions of bias

Bias analyses to investigate the impact of differential participation: Application to a birth defects case-control study

BACKGROUND

Certain associations observed in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) contrasted with other research or were from areas with mixed findings, including no decrease in odds of spina bifida with periconceptional folic acid supplementation, moderately increased cleft palate odds with ondansetron use and reduced hypospadias odds with maternal smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the plausibility and extent of differential participation to produce effect estimates observed in NBDPS.

METHODS

We searched the literature for factors related to these exposures and participation and conducted deterministic quantitative bias analyses. We estimated case-control participation and expected exposure prevalence based on internal and external reports, respectively. For the folic acid-spina bifida and ondansetron-cleft palate analyses, we hypothesized the true odds ratio (OR) based on prior studies and quantified the degree of exposure over- (or under-) representation to produce the crude OR (cOR) in NBDPS. For the smoking-hypospadias analysis, we estimated the extent of selection bias needed to nullify the association as well as the maximum potential harmful OR.

RESULTS

Under our assumptions (participation, exposure prevalence, true OR), there was overrepresentation of folic acid use and underrepresentation of ondansetron use and smoking among participants. Folic acid-exposed spina bifida cases would need to have been ≥1.2× more likely to participate than exposed controls to yield the observed null cOR. Ondansetron-exposed cleft palate cases would need to have been 1.6× more likely to participate than exposed controls if the true OR is null. Smoking-exposed hypospadias cases would need to have been ≥1.2 times less likely to participate than exposed controls for the association to falsely appear protective (upper bound of selection bias adjusted smoking-hypospadias OR = 2.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Differential participation could partly explain certain associations observed in NBDPS, but questions remain about why. Potential impacts of other systematic errors (e.g. exposure misclassification) could be informed by additional research.

Evaluation of quantitative bias analysis in epidemiological research: A systematic review from 2010 to mid-2023

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to demonstrate the use of quantitative bias analysis (QBA), which reveals the effects of systematic error, including confounding, misclassification and selection bias, on study results in epidemiological studies published in the period from 2010 to mid-23.

METHOD

The articles identified through a keyword search using Pubmed and Scopus were included in the study. The articles obtained from this search were eliminated according to the exclusion criteria, and the articles in which QBA analysis was applied were included in the detailed evaluation.

RESULTS

It can be said that the application of QBA analysis has gradually increased over the 13-year period. Accordingly, the number of articles in which simple is used as a method in QBA analysis is 9 (9.89%), the number of articles in which the multidimensional approach is used is 10 (10.99%), the number of articles in which the probabilistic approach is used is 60 (65.93%) and the number of articles in which the method is not specified is 12 (13.19%). The number of articles with misclassification bias model is 44 (48.35%), the number of articles with uncontrolled confounder(s) bias model is 32 (35.16%), the number of articles with selection bias model is 7 (7.69%) and the number of articles using more than one bias model is 8 (8.79%). Of the 49 (53.85%) articles in which the bias parameter source was specified, 19 (38.78%) used internal validation, 26 (53.06%) used external validation and 4 (8.16%) used educated guess, data constraints and hypothetical data. Probabilistic approach was used as a bias method in 60 (65.93%) of the articles, and mostly beta (8 [13.33%)], normal (9 [15.00%]) and uniform (8 [13.33%]) distributions were selected.

CONCLUSION

The application of QBA is rare in the literature but is increasing over time. Future researchers should include detailed analyzes such as QBA analysis to obtain inferences with higher evidence value, taking into account systematic errors.