The DOI matches its Crossref record.
CONFOUNDING AND MISCLASSIFICATION
Abstract
The authors examine some recently proposed criteria for determining when to adjust for covariates related to misclassification, and show these criteria to be incorrect. In particular, they show that when misclassification is present, covariate control can sometimes increase net bias, even when the covariate would have been a confounder under perfect classification, and even if the covariate is a determinant of classification. Thus, bias due to misclassification cannot be adequately dealt with by the methods used for control of confounding. The examples presented also show that the "change-in-estimate" criterion for deciding whether to control a covariate can be systematically misleading when misclassification is present. These results demonstrate that it is necessary to consider the degree of misclassification when deciding whether to control a covariate.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Unfortunately, adjusting for determinants of misclassification does not mitigate this bias and can instead induce bias (Greenland and Robins 1985).”
From Exposure to Air Pollution in Relation to Risk of Dementia and Related Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review of the Epidemiological Literature (2021) · cites this paper as Greenland and Robins 1985
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J. A., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Mogun, H., & Brookhart, M. A. (2009) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181a663cc · Cited by 1,128
Deeks, J. J. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1188 · Cited by 660
Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data
Greenland, S. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00349.x · Cited by 497
Assessment and Control for Confounding by Indication in Observational Studies
Psaty, B. M., Koepsell, T. D., Lin, D., Weiss, N. S., Siscovick, D. S., Rosendaal, F. R., Pahor, M., & Furberg, C. D. (1999) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb01603.x · Cited by 363
Phillips, A. N., & Smith, G. D. (1991) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90155-3 · Cited by 275
Kahn, M. G., Raebel, M. A., Glanz, J. M., Riedlinger, K., & Steiner, J. F. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318257dd67 · Cited by 260
Weuve, J., Bennett, E. E., Ranker, L., Gianattasio, K. Z., Pedde, M., Adar, S. D., Yanosky, J. D., & Power, M. C. (2021) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp8716 · Cited by 209
Bias in case-control studies. A review.
Kopec, J. A., & Esdaile, J. M. (1990) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.44.3.179 · Cited by 190
Considerations related to vaping as a possible gateway into cigarette smoking: An analytical review
Lee, P. N., Coombs, K. J., & Afolalu, E. F. (2018) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.16928.1 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- GREENLAND, S., & ROBINS, J. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1985-09
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 495-506
- ISSN
- 1476-6256
- 0002-9262
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
