TY - JOUR
T1 - Misclassification of outcome in case-control studies
T2 - Methods for sensitivity analysis
AU - Gilbert, Rebecca
AU - Martin, Richard M.
AU - Donovan, Jenny
AU - Lane, J. Athene
AU - Hamdy, Freddie
AU - Neal, David E.
AU - Metcalfe, Chris
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© SAGE Publications.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Case-control studies are potentially open to misclassification of disease outcome which may be unrelated to risk factor exposure (non-differential), thus underestimating associations, or related to risk factor exposure (differential), thus causing more serious bias. We conducted a systematic literature review for methods of adjusting for outcome misclassification in case-control studies. We also applied methods to simulated data with known outcome misclassification to assess performance of these methods. Finally, real data from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial gauged the usefulness of these methods. Adjustment methods range from recalculating cell frequencies to probabilistic sensitivity modelling and Bayesian models, which incorporate uncertainty in sensitivity and specificity estimates. Simulated data indicated that substantial bias in either direction resulted from differential misclassification. More sophisticated methods, incorporating uncertainty into estimates of misclassification, provided appropriately wide confidence intervals for corrected estimates of risk factor-disease association. Method choice depends on whether the objective is to assess if an observed association can be explained by bias, or to provide a 'corrected' estimate for the primary analysis. Accurate estimation of the degree of misclassification is important for the latter; otherwise further bias may be introduced.
AB - Case-control studies are potentially open to misclassification of disease outcome which may be unrelated to risk factor exposure (non-differential), thus underestimating associations, or related to risk factor exposure (differential), thus causing more serious bias. We conducted a systematic literature review for methods of adjusting for outcome misclassification in case-control studies. We also applied methods to simulated data with known outcome misclassification to assess performance of these methods. Finally, real data from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial gauged the usefulness of these methods. Adjustment methods range from recalculating cell frequencies to probabilistic sensitivity modelling and Bayesian models, which incorporate uncertainty in sensitivity and specificity estimates. Simulated data indicated that substantial bias in either direction resulted from differential misclassification. More sophisticated methods, incorporating uncertainty into estimates of misclassification, provided appropriately wide confidence intervals for corrected estimates of risk factor-disease association. Method choice depends on whether the objective is to assess if an observed association can be explained by bias, or to provide a 'corrected' estimate for the primary analysis. Accurate estimation of the degree of misclassification is important for the latter; otherwise further bias may be introduced.
KW - case-control study
KW - misclassification of outcome
KW - risk factors for prostate cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989904011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0962280214523192
DO - 10.1177/0962280214523192
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 25217446
AN - SCOPUS:84989904011
SN - 0962-2802
VL - 25
SP - 2377
EP - 2393
JO - Statistical Methods in Medical Research
JF - Statistical Methods in Medical Research
IS - 5
ER -