Cited by 275Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

How independent are “independent” effects? relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured imprecisely

Phillips, Andrew N., Smith, George Davey·1991·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

A relative risk estimate which relates an exposure to risk of disease will tend to be estimated too close to unity if that exposure is subject to random measurement error or intra-subject variability. "Independent" relative risk estimates, for the effect of one exposure after adjusting for confounding exposures, may be biased in either direction, depending on the amount of measurement imprecision in the exposure of interest and in the confounders. We describe two methods which estimate the bias in multivariate relative risk estimates due to the effect of measurement imprecision in one or more of the exposure variables in the model. Results from the two methods are compared in an example involving HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and coronary heart disease. In this example, the degree of bias in relative risk estimates is shown to be highly dependent on the amount of measurement imprecision ascribed to the exposures. It is concluded that when two exposures are substantially correlated, and one or both is subject to sizeable measurement imprecision, a study in which exposures are measured only once will be inadequate for investigating the independent effect of the exposures. Where feasible, epidemiologists should seek study populations where the correlation between the exposures is smaller.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90155-3

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When correlated risk factors are measured with different degrees of imprecision, the adjusted relative risk associated with them can be biased towards or away from unity.

    “However, when correlated risk factors are measured with different degrees of imprecision, the adjusted relative risk associated with them can be biased towards or away from unity [ 204 – 206 ].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, A. N., & Smith, G. D.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Phillips, Andrew N.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-01
Volume
44
Issue
11
Pages
1223-1231
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031403388
Cited by
275
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
22.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
relative risk estimation, measurement error, confounding, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, coronary artery disease
MeSH terms
Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Mathematical Computing, Myocardial Infarction, Probability, Risk, Triglycerides, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Multivariate Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review