Cited by 497Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data

Greenland, Sander·2005·Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)

Abstract

Summary Conventional analytic results do not reflect any source of uncertainty other than random error, and as a result readers must rely on informal judgments regarding the effect of possible biases. When standard errors are small these judgments often fail to capture sources of uncertainty and their interactions adequately. Multiple-bias models provide alternatives that allow one systematically to integrate major sources of uncertainty, and thus to provide better input to research planning and policy analysis. Typically, the bias parameters in the model are not identified by the analysis data and so the results depend completely on priors for those parameters. A Bayesian analysis is then natural, but several alternatives based on sensitivity analysis have appeared in the risk assessment and epidemiologic literature. Under some circumstances these methods approximate a Bayesian analysis and can be modified to do so even better. These points are illustrated with a pooled analysis of case–control studies of residential magnetic field exposure and childhood leukaemia, which highlights the diminishing value of conventional studies conducted after the early 1990s. It is argued that multiple-bias modelling should become part of the core training of anyone who will be entrusted with the analysis of observational data, and should become standard procedure when random error is not the only important source of uncertainty (as in meta-analysis and pooled analysis).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00349.x

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were used to quantify the uncertainty in observed risk estimates due to the simultaneous operation of unmeasured confounders, selection bias differential with respect to both personality/SES and mortality, and systematic measurement error in personality and SES.

    “Finally, we used Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses (MCSA) (39,40) to quantify the uncertainty in observed risk estimates due to the simultaneous operation of unmeasured confounders, selection bias differential with respect to both personality/SES and mortality, and systematic measurement error in personality and SES.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greenland, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Greenland, Sander
Venue
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
168
Issue
2
Pages
267-306
ISSN
  • 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-985X
OpenAlex
W2144802852
Cited by
497
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 21
FWCI
39.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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
bias parameter, sensitivity analysis, Bayesian analysis, case-control study, residential magnetic field exposure, pediatric leukemia, pooled analysis, meta-analysis, research planning

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