A comparison of sensitivity-specificity imputation, direct imputation and fully Bayesian analysis to adjust for exposure misclassification when validation data are unavailable
Open Access
- 14 March 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 46 (3), 1063-1072
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx027
Abstract
Purpose: Measurement error is an important source of bias in epidemiological studies. We illustrate three approaches to sensitivity analysis for the effect of measurement error: imputation of the ‘true’ exposure based on specifying the sensitivity and specificity of the measured exposure (SS); direct imputation (DI) using a regression model for the predictive values; and adjustment based on a fully Bayesian analysis. Methods: We deliberately misclassify smoking status in data from a case-control study of lung cancer. We then implement the SS and DI methods using fixed-parameter (FBA) and probabilistic (PBA) bias analyses, and Bayesian analysis using the Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo program WinBUGS to show how well each recovers the original association. Results: The ‘true’ smoking-lung cancer odds ratio (OR), adjusted for sex in the original dataset, was OR = 8.18 [95% confidence limits (CL): 5.86, 11.43]; after misclassification, it decreased to OR = 3.08 (nominal 95% CL: 2.40, 3.96). The adjusted point estimates from all three approaches were always closer to the ‘true’ OR than the OR estimated from the unadjusted misclassified smoking data, and the adjusted interval estimates were always wider than the unadjusted interval estimate. When imputed misclassification parameters departed much from the actual misclassification, the ‘true’ OR was often omitted in the FBA intervals whereas it was always included in the PBA and Bayesian intervals. Conclusions: These results illustrate how PBA and Bayesian analyses can be used to better account for uncertainty and bias due to measurement error.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is Probabilistic Bias Analysis Approximately Bayesian?Epidemiology, 2012
- Lung cancer and occupation: A new zealand cancer registry‐based case–control studyAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2010
- Bayesian perspectives for epidemiologic research: III. Bias analysis via missing-data methodsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2009
- Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research. II. Regression analysisInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2007
- Sensitivity Analysis of Misclassification: A Graphical and a Bayesian ApproachAnnals of Epidemiology, 2006
- Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correctionInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundations and basic methodsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
- A method to automate probabilistic sensitivity analyses of misclassified binary variablesInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- Multiple-Bias Modelling for Analysis of Observational DataJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2005
- The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis.American Journal of Public Health, 1994