Comparing methods of misclassification correction for studies of adolescent alcohol use

Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Multiple Sclerosis Using Model-based Standardization and Misclassification Adjustment Via Probabilistic Bias Analysis

BACKGROUND

The etiology of multiple sclerosis (MS) is still not well-demonstrated, and assessment of some risk factors like alcohol consumption has problems like confounding and measurement bias. To determine the causal effect of alcohol consumption on MS after adjusting for alcohol consumption misclassification bias and confounders.

METHODS

In a population-based incident case-control study, 547 patients with MS and 1057 healthy people were recruited. A minimally sufficient adjustment set of confounders was derived using the causal directed acyclic graph. The probabilistic bias analysis method (PBAM) using beta, logit-logistic, and triangular probability distributions for sensitivity/specificity to adjust for misclassification bias in self-reporting alcohol consumption and model-based standardization (MBS) to estimate the causal effect of alcohol consumption were used. Population attributable fraction (PAF) estimates with 95% Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis (MCSA) intervals were calculated using PBAM and MBS analysis. Bootstrap was used to deal with random errors.

RESULTS

The adjusted risk ratio (95% MCSA interval) from the probabilistic bias analysis and MBS between alcohol consumption and MS using the three distribution was in the range of 1.93 (1.07 to 4.07) to 2.02 (1.15 to 4.69). The risk difference (RD) in all three scenarios was 0.0001 (0.0000 to 0.0005) and PAF was in the range of 0.15 (0.010 to 0.50) to 0.17 (0.001 to 0.47).

CONCLUSION

After adjusting for measurement bias, confounding, and random error alcohol consumption had a positive causal effect on the incidence of MS.

The Measurement Error Elephant in the Room: Challenges and Solutions to Measurement Error in Epidemiology

Measurement error, although ubiquitous, is uncommonly acknowledged and rarely assessed or corrected in epidemiologic studies. This review offers a straightforward guide to common problems caused by measurement error in research studies and a review of several accessible bias-correction methods for epidemiologists and data analysts. Although most correction methods require criterion validation including a gold standard, there are also ways to evaluate the impact of measurement error and potentially correct for it without such data. Technical difficulty ranges from simple algebra to more complex algorithms that require expertise, fine tuning, and computational power. However, at all skill levels, software packages and methods are available and can be used to understand the threat to inferences that arises from imperfect measurements.

Combining self-reported and objectively measured survey data to improve hypertension prevalence estimates: Portuguese experience

BACKGROUND

Accurate data on hypertension is essential to inform decision-making. Hypertension prevalence may be underestimated by population-based surveys due to misclassification of health status by participants. Therefore, adjustment for misclassification bias is required when relying on self-reports. This study aims to quantify misclassification bias in self-reported hypertension prevalence and prevalence ratios in the Portuguese component of the European Health Interview Survey (INS2014), and illustrate application of multiple imputation (MIME) for bias correction using measured high blood pressure data from the first Portuguese health examination survey (INSEF).

METHODS

We assumed that objectively measured hypertension status was missing for INS2014 participants (n = 13,937) and imputed it using INSEF (n = 4910) as auxiliary data. Self-reported, objectively measured and MIME-corrected hypertension prevalence and prevalence ratios (PR) by sex, age group and education were estimated. Bias in self-reported and MIME-corrected estimates were computed using objectively measured INSEF data as a gold-standard.

RESULTS

Self-reported INS2014 data underestimated hypertension prevalence in all population subgroups, with misclassification bias ranging from 5.2 to 18.6 percentage points (pp). After MIME-correction, prevalence estimates increased and became closer to objectively measured ones, with bias reduction to 0 pp - 5.7 pp. Compared to objectively measured INSEF, self-reported INS2014 data considerably underestimated prevalence ratio by sex (PR = 0.8, 95CI = [0.7, 0.9] vs. PR = 1.2, 95CI = [1.1, 1.4]). MIME successfully corrected direction of association with sex in bivariate (PR = 1.1, 95CI = [1.0, 1.3]) and multivariate analyses (PR = 1.2, 95CI = [1.0, 1.3]). Misclassification bias in hypertension prevalence ratios by education and age group were less pronounced and did not require correction in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the importance of misclassification bias analysis in self-reported hypertension. Multiple imputation is a feasible approach to adjust for misclassification bias in prevalence estimates and exposure-outcomes associations in survey data.