Cited by 173Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research

Open access
van Smeden, Maarten, Lash, Timothy L, Groenwold, Rolf H H·2020·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Epidemiologists are often confronted with datasets to analyse which contain measurement error due to, for instance, mistaken data entries, inaccurate recordings and measurement instrument or procedural errors. If the effect of measurement error is misjudged, the data analyses are hampered and the validity of the study’s inferences may be affected. In this paper, we describe five myths that contribute to misjudgments about measurement error, regarding expected structure, impact and solutions to mitigate the problems resulting from mismeasurements. The aim is to clarify these measurement error misconceptions. We show that the influence of measurement error in an epidemiological data analysis can play out in ways that go beyond simple heuristics, such as heuristics about whether or not to expect attenuation of the effect estimates. Whereas we encourage epidemiologists to deliberate about the structure and potential impact of measurement error in their analyses, we also recommend exercising restraint when making claims about the magnitude or even direction of effect of measurement error if not accompanied by statistical measurement error corrections or quantitative bias analysis. Suggestions for alleviating the problems or investigating the structure and magnitude of measurement error are given.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyz251

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Measurement errors can reduce the model's predictive performance and potential usefulness.

    “This means that the model's predictive performance and potential usefulness could be reduced.49”

    From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Methods for correcting measurement errors typically require additional data and assumptions.

    “While methods for correcting measurement errors have been proposed, they typically require additional data and assumptions.49”

    From Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide (2024) · cites this paper as [49]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash T. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd edn Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Smeden, M., Lash, T. L., & Groenwold, R. H. H.
Affiliations
  • Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Emory University (US)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
338-347
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2994811916
Cited by
173
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 1
FWCI
13.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (R01LM013049)
  • National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
measurement error, attenuation bias, effect estimates, measurement error correction, quantitative bias analysis, data quality
MeSH terms
Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Models, Statistical, Epidemiologic Research Design, Bias, Epidemiologic Studies

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