Article

Differential misclassification arising from nondifferential errors in exposure measurement.

Division of Health Examination Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Hyattsville, MD.
American Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.98). 12/1991; 134(10):1233-44.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Misclassification into exposure categories formed from a continuous variable arises from measurement error in the continuous variable. Examples and mathematical results are presented to show that if the measurement error is nondifferential (independent of disease status), the resulting misclassification will often be differential, even in cohort studies. The degree and direction of differential misclassification vary with the exposure distribution, the category definitions, the measurement error distribution, and the exposure-disease relation. Failure to recognize the likelihood of differential misclassification may lead to incorrect conclusions about the effects of measurement error on estimates of relative risk when categories are formed from continuous variables, such as dietary intake. Simulations were used to examine some effects of nondifferential measurement error. Under the conditions used, nondifferential measurement error reduced relative risk estimates, but not to the degree predicted by the assumption of nondifferential misclassification. When relative risk estimates were corrected using methods appropriate for nondifferential misclassification, the "corrected" relative risks were almost always higher than the true relative risks, sometimes considerably higher. The greater the measurement error, the more inaccurate was the correction. The effects of exposure measurement errors need more critical evaluation.

1 Follower
 · 
102 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the misclassification of periodontitis using two operational protocols currently employed in research, as a result of intra-examiner less-than-perfect reliability of their formative clinical parameters. Methods: Full-mouth duplicate recordings (6 sites per tooth) of probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were obtained by a single examiner, one week apart, from 148 adults with self-perceived need for periodontal treatment. They were used to classify periodontitis subjects according to the protocols proposed by the 5th European Workshop in Periodontology (EWP5) and the collaboration between the US Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology (CDC-AAP). Results: 100% and 91.2% of the subjects were classified as periodontitis cases according to the EWP5 the CDC-AAP protocols, respectively. Test-retest agreement was observed in 95% and 85% of the classified subjects according to the EWP5 and CDC-AAP protocols, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Alignment of protocols, in terms of number of classification categories, resulted in a similar test-retest agreement of 95% using the EWP5 protocol for extensive periodontitis and 90% using the CDC-AAP protocol for severe periodontitis (p = 0.09). Misclassification was non-differential when subjects were classified according either to the EWP5 or the aligned CDC-AAP protocols, whilst the reliability using the original CDC-AAP protocol depended on the extent of bleeding on probing, CAL ≥ 3 mm and PD ≥ 4 mm. Conclusion: This study suggests the EWP5 protocol is less error-prone than the CDC-AAP protocol in adult subjects with perceived need for periodontal treatment, as a result of intra-examiner less-than-perfect reliability of periodontal clinical parameters. Extensive or severe cases presented similar misclassification. Further studies using survey-like conditions are recommended to confirm these findings.
    Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology 01/2015; DOI:10.1111/cdoe.12142 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
278 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014