IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2015i10p12834-12846d57138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying and Adjusting for Disease Misclassification Due to Loss to Follow-Up in Historical Cohort Mortality Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Laura L. F. Scott

    (Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

  • George Maldonado

    (Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA)

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to quantify and adjust for disease misclassification from loss to follow-up in a historical cohort mortality study of workers where exposure was categorized as a multi-level variable. Disease classification parameters were defined using 2008 mortality data for the New Zealand population and the proportions of known deaths observed for the cohort. The probability distributions for each classification parameter were constructed to account for potential differences in mortality due to exposure status, gender, and ethnicity. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis (bias analysis), which uses Monte Carlo techniques, was then used to sample each parameter distribution 50,000 times, calculating adjusted odds ratios ( OR DM-LTF ) that compared the mortality of workers with the highest cumulative exposure to those that were considered never-exposed. The geometric mean OR DM-LTF ranged between 1.65 (certainty interval (CI): 0.50–3.88) and 3.33 (CI: 1.21–10.48), and the geometric mean of the disease-misclassification error factor ( e DM-LTF ), which is the ratio of the observed odds ratio to the adjusted odds ratio, had a range of 0.91 (CI: 0.29–2.52) to 1.85 (CI: 0.78–6.07). Only when workers in the highest exposure category were more likely than those never-exposed to be misclassified as non-cases did the OR DM-LTF frequency distributions shift further away from the null. The application of uncertainty analysis to historical cohort mortality studies with multi-level exposures can provide valuable insight into the magnitude and direction of study error resulting from losses to follow-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura L. F. Scott & George Maldonado, 2015. "Quantifying and Adjusting for Disease Misclassification Due to Loss to Follow-Up in Historical Cohort Mortality Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:10:p:12834-12846:d:57138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/10/12834/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/10/12834/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. McCandless & Sylvia Richardson & Nicky Best, 2012. "Adjustment for Missing Confounders Using External Validation Data and Propensity Scores," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(497), pages 40-51, March.
    2. Douglas E. Schaubel & Guanghui Wei, 2011. "Double Inverse-Weighted Estimation of Cumulative Treatment Effects Under Nonproportional Hazards and Dependent Censoring," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 29-38, March.
    3. McCandless Lawrence C., 2012. "Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies with Unmeasured Confounders," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-31, January.
    4. Maria Gheorghe & Susan Picavet & Monique Verschuren & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Pieter H. M. Baal, 2017. "Health losses at the end of life: a Bayesian mixed beta regression approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(3), pages 723-749, June.
    5. Rebecca M. Turner & David J. Spiegelhalter & Gordon C. S. Smith & Simon G. Thompson, 2009. "Bias modelling in evidence synthesis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 21-47, January.
    6. Qi Zhou & Yoo-Mi Chin & James D. Stamey & Joon Jin Song, 2020. "Bayesian sensitivity analysis to unmeasured confounding for misclassified data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 104(4), pages 577-596, December.
    7. de Luna, Xavier & Lundin, Mathias, 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption in observational studies," Working Paper Series 2009:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    8. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & J. B. Carlin & D. G. Altman & J. A. C. Sterne, 2009. "Models for potentially biased evidence in meta‐analysis using empirically based priors," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 119-136, January.
    9. P. Gustafson & L. C. McCandless & A. R. Levy & S. Richardson, 2010. "Simplified Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Mismeasured and Unobserved Confounders," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1129-1137, December.
    10. Desiree C Wilks & Stephen J Sharp & Ulf Ekelund & Simon G Thompson & Adrian P Mander & Rebecca M Turner & Susan A Jebb & Anna Karin Lindroos, 2011. "Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Fat Mass in Children: A Bias-Adjusted Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, February.
    11. Xavier de Luna & Mathias Lundin, 2014. "Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption with an application to an evaluation of college choice effects on earnings," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(8), pages 1767-1784, August.
    12. Jiang, Zhichao & Ding, Peng, 2017. "The directions of selection bias," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 104-109.
    13. Rebecca M Turner & Myfanwy Lloyd-Jones & Dilly O C Anumba & Gordon C S Smith & David J Spiegelhalter & Hazel Squires & John W Stevens & Michael J Sweeting & Stanislaw J Urbaniak & Robert Webster & Sim, 2012. "Routine Antenatal Anti-D Prophylaxis in Women Who Are Rh(D) Negative: Meta-Analyses Adjusted for Differences in Study Design and Quality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-10, February.
    14. Nuoo‐Ting Molitor & Nicky Best & Chris Jackson & Sylvia Richardson, 2009. "Using Bayesian graphical models to model biases in observational studies and to combine multiple sources of data: application to low birth weight and water disinfection by‐products," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(3), pages 615-637, June.
    15. A. M. Presanis & D. De Angelis & D. J. Spiegelhalter & S. Seaman & A. Goubar & A. E. Ades, 2008. "Conflicting evidence in a Bayesian synthesis of surveillance data to estimate human immunodeficiency virus prevalence," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(4), pages 915-937, October.
    16. Paul Gustafson, 2007. "Measurement error modelling with an approximate instrumental variable," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 797-815, November.
    17. Kaatje Bollaerts & Vivek Shinde & Gaël Dos Santos & Germano Ferreira & Vincent Bauchau & Catherine Cohet & Thomas Verstraeten, 2016. "Application of Probabilistic Multiple-Bias Analyses to a Cohort- and a Case-Control Study on the Association between Pandemrix™and Narcolepsy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Ximena P. Vergara & Heidi J. Fischer & Michael Yost & Michael Silva & David A. Lombardi & Leeka Kheifets, 2015. "Job Exposure Matrix for Electric Shock Risks with Their Uncertainties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    19. Martin Ladouceur & Elham Rahme & Christian A. Pineau & Lawrence Joseph, 2007. "Robustness of Prevalence Estimates Derived from Misclassified Data from Administrative Databases," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 272-279, March.
    20. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:10:p:12834-12846:d:57138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.