Differential misclassification arising from nondifferential errors in exposure measurement.

Misclassification into exposure categories formed from a continuous variable arises from measurement error in the continuous variable. Examples and mathematical results are presented to show that if the measurement error is nondifferential (independent of disease status), the resulting misclassification will often be differential, even in cohort studies. The degree and direction of differential misclassification vary with the exposure distribution, the category definitions, the measurement error distribution, and the exposure-disease relation. Failure to recognize the likelihood of differential misclassification may lead to incorrect conclusions about the effects of measurement error on estimates of relative risk when categories are formed from continuous variables, such as dietary intake. Simulations were used to examine some effects of nondifferential measurement error. Under the conditions used, nondifferential measurement error reduced relative risk estimates, but not to the degree predicted by the assumption of nondifferential misclassification. When relative risk estimates were corrected using methods appropriate for nondifferential misclassification, the "corrected" relative risks were almost always higher than the true relative risks, sometimes considerably higher. The greater the measurement error, the more inaccurate was the correction. The effects of exposure measurement errors need more critical evaluation.

[1]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[2]  W. Grove Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed , 1981 .

[3]  R. Priore,et al.  On the distortion of risk estimates in multiple exposure level case-control studies. , 1981, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  H. Morgenstern,et al.  Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods. , 1983 .

[5]  James J Schlesselman Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis , 1982 .

[6]  M Blettner,et al.  Comparing imperfect measures of exposure. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  M. Singer,et al.  Nutritional Epidemiology , 2020, Definitions.

[8]  C Brownie,et al.  The effects of exposure misclassification on estimates of relative risk. , 1986, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  P. Deurenberg,et al.  Weak associations in nutritional epidemiology: the importance of replication of observations on individuals. , 1988, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  J. Robins,et al.  Analysis of case-control data derived in part from proxy respondents. , 1988, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  J R Marshall,et al.  The use of dual or multiple reports in epidemiologic studies. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  N. E. Johnson,et al.  Nutrient misclassification: bias in the odds ratio and loss of power in the Mantel test for trend. , 1989, International journal of epidemiology.

[13]  M Dosemeci,et al.  Does nondifferential misclassification of exposure always bias a true effect toward the null value? , 1990, American journal of epidemiology.

[14]  J. Palmgren,et al.  Variability in nutrient and food intakes among older middle-aged men. Implications for design of epidemiologic and validation studies using food recording. , 1990, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  S. Wacholder,et al.  Blind assignment of exposure does not always prevent differential misclassification. , 1991, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Mustafa Dosemeci,et al.  RE: “DOES NONDIFFERENTIAL MISCLASSIFICATION OF EXPOSURE ALWAYS BIAS A TRUE EFFECT TOWARD THE NULL VALUE?” , 1991 .