Search

Observational data are increasingly used with the aim of estimating causal effects of treatments, through careful control for confounding. Marginal structural models estimated using inverse probability weighting (MSMs-IPW), like other methods to control for confounding, assume that confounding variables are measured without error. The average treatment effect in an MSM-IPW may however be biased when a confounding variable is error prone. Using the potential outcome framework, we derive expressions for the bias due to confounder misclassification in analyses that aim to estimate the average treatment effect using an marginal structural model estimated using inverse probability weighting (MSM-IPW). We compare this bias with the bias due to confounder misclassification in analyses based on a conditional regression model. Focus is on a point-treatment study with a continuous outcome. Compared with bias in the average treatment effect in a conditional model, the bias in an MSM-IPW can be different in magnitude but is equal in sign. Also, we use a simulation study to investigate the finite sample performance of MSM-IPW and conditional models when a confounding variable is misclassified. Simulation results indicate that confidence intervals of the treatment effect obtained from MSM-IPW are generally wider, and coverage of the true treatment effect is higher compared with a conditional model, ranging from overcoverage if there is no confounder misclassification to undercoverage when there is confounder misclassification. Further, we illustrate in a study of blood pressure-lowering therapy, how the bias expressions can be used to inform a quantitative bias analysis to study the impact of confounder misclassification, supported by an online tool.

Objectives: In medical research, covariates (e.g., exposure and confounder variables) are often measured with error. While it is well accepted that this introduces bias and imprecision in exposure-outcome relations, it is unclear to what extent such issues are currently considered in research practice. The objective was to study common practices regarding covariate measurement error via a systematic review of general medicine and epidemiology literature., Study Design and Setting: Original research published in 2016 in 12 high impact journals was full-text searched for phrases relating to measurement error. Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized., Results: Two hundred and forty-seven (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error., Conclusions: Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals. Our systematic review highlights the need for increased awareness about the possible impact of covariate measurement error. Additionally, guidance on the use of measurement error correction methods is necessary., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Exposure measurement error is a problem in many epidemiological studies, including those using biomarkers and measures of dietary intake. Measurement error typically results in biased estimates of exposure-disease associations, the severity and nature of the bias depending on the form of the error. To correct for the effects of measurement error, information additional to the main study data is required. Ideally, this is a validation sample in which the true exposure is observed. However, in many situations, it is not feasible to observe the true exposure, but there may be available one or more repeated exposure measurements, for example, blood pressure or dietary intake recorded at two time points. The aim of this paper is to provide a toolkit for measurement error correction using repeated measurements. We bring together methods covering classical measurement error and several departures from classical error: systematic, heteroscedastic and differential error. The correction methods considered are regression calibration, which is already widely used in the classical error setting, and moment reconstruction and multiple imputation, which are newer approaches with the ability to handle differential error. We emphasize practical application of the methods in nutritional epidemiology and other fields. We primarily consider continuous exposures in the exposure-outcome model, but we also outline methods for use when continuous exposures are categorized. The methods are illustrated using the data from a study of the association between fibre intake and colorectal cancer, where fibre intake is measured using a diet diary and repeated measures are available for a subset., (© 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Nutritional epidemiology relies largely on self-reported measures of dietary intake, errors in which give biased estimated diet-disease associations. Self-reported measurements come from questionnaires and food records. Unbiased biomarkers are scarce; however, surrogate biomarkers, which are correlated with intake but not unbiased, can also be useful. It is important to quantify and correct for the effects of measurement error on diet-disease associations. Challenges arise because there is no gold standard, and errors in self-reported measurements are correlated with true intake and each other. We describe an extended model for error in questionnaire, food record, and surrogate biomarker measurements. The focus is on estimating the degree of bias in estimated diet-disease associations due to measurement error. In particular, we propose using sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of changes in values of model parameters which are usually assumed fixed. The methods are motivated by and applied to measures of fruit and vegetable intake from questionnaires, 7-day diet diaries, and surrogate biomarker (plasma vitamin C) from over 25000 participants in the Norfolk cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Our results show that the estimated effects of error in self-reported measurements are highly sensitive to model assumptions, resulting in anything from a large attenuation to a small amplification in the diet-disease association. Commonly made assumptions could result in a large overcorrection for the effects of measurement error. Increased understanding of relationships between potential surrogate biomarkers and true dietary intake is essential for obtaining good estimates of the effects of measurement error in self-reported measurements on observed diet-disease associations., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)