Quantifying and Reporting Uncertainty from Systematic Errors
- 1 July 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Epidemiology
- Vol. 14 (4), 459-466
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000072106.65262.ae
Abstract
Optimal use of epidemiologic findings in decision making requires more information than standard analyses provide. It requires calculating and reporting the total uncertainty in the results, which in turn requires methods for quantifying the uncertainty introduced by systematic error. Quantified uncertainty can improve policy and clinical decisions, better direct further research, and aid public understanding, and thus enhance the contributions of epidemiology. The error quantification approach proposed here is based on estimating a probability distribution for a bias-corrected effect measure based on externally-derived distributions of bias levels. Using Monte Carlo simulation, corrections for multiple biases are combined by identifying the steps through which true causal effects become data, and (in reverse order) correcting for the errors introduced by each step. The bias-correction calculations are the same as those used in sensitivity analysis, but the resulting distribution of possible true values is more than a sensitivity analysis; it is a more complete reporting of the actual study results. The approach is illustrated with an application to a recent study that resulted in the drug, phenylpropanolamine, being removed from the market.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Quantifying errors without random samplingBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2003
- Estimating causal effectsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2002
- Response: Defining and estimating causal effectsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2002
- Sensitivity Analysis, Monte Carlo Risk Analysis, and Bayesian Uncertainty AssessmentRisk Analysis, 2001
- The economics of ‘more research is needed’International Journal of Epidemiology, 2001
- Causation of Bias: The EpiscopeEpidemiology, 2001
- Phenylpropanolamine and the Risk of Hemorrhagic StrokeNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- A Sensitivity Analysis to Separate Bias Due to Confounding from Bias Due to Predicting Misclassification by a Variable That Does BothEpidemiology, 2000
- Evidence for Age-specific Genetic Relative Risks in Lung CancerAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2000
- Incidence of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction in Women of Reproductive AgeStroke, 1997