Cargando…

Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies

Using imperfect tests may lead to biased estimates of disease frequency and measures of association. Many studies have looked into the effect of misclassification on statistical inferences. These evaluations were either within a cross-sectional study framework, assessing biased prevalence, or for co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haine, Denis, Dohoo, Ian, Dufour, Simon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29892604
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00099
_version_ 1783328803999711232
author Haine, Denis
Dohoo, Ian
Dufour, Simon
author_facet Haine, Denis
Dohoo, Ian
Dufour, Simon
author_sort Haine, Denis
collection PubMed
description Using imperfect tests may lead to biased estimates of disease frequency and measures of association. Many studies have looked into the effect of misclassification on statistical inferences. These evaluations were either within a cross-sectional study framework, assessing biased prevalence, or for cohort study designs, evaluating biased incidence rate or risk ratio estimates based on misclassification at one of the two time-points (initial assessment or follow-up). However, both observations at risk and incident cases can be wrongly identified in longitudinal studies, leading to selection and misclassification biases, respectively. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the relative impact of selection and misclassification biases resulting from misclassification, together, on measures of incidence and risk ratio. To investigate impact on measure of disease frequency, data sets from a hypothetical cohort study with two samples collected one month apart were simulated and analyzed based on specific test and disease characteristics, with no elimination of disease during the sampling interval or clustering of observations. Direction and magnitude of bias due to selection, misclassification, and total bias was assessed for diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 and 0.8 to 1.0, respectively, and for specific disease contexts, i.e., disease prevalences of 5 and 20%, and disease incidences of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 cases/animal-month. A hypothetical exposure with known strength of association was also generated. A total of 1,000 cohort studies of 1,000 observations each were simulated for these six disease contexts where the same diagnostic test was used to identify observations at risk at beginning of the cohort and incident cases at its end. Our results indicated that the departure of the estimates of disease incidence and risk ratio from their true value were mainly a function of test specificity, and disease prevalence and incidence. The combination of the two biases, at baseline and follow-up, revealed the importance of a good to excellent specificity relative to sensitivity for the diagnostic test. Small divergence from perfect specificity extended quickly to disease incidence over-estimation as true prevalence increased and true incidence decreased. A highly sensitive test to exclude diseased subjects at baseline was of less importance to minimize bias than using a highly specific one at baseline. Near perfect diagnostic test attributes were even more important to obtain a measure of association close to the true risk ratio, according to specific disease characteristics, especially its prevalence. Low prevalent and high incident disease lead to minimal bias if disease is diagnosed with high sensitivity and close to perfect specificity at baseline and follow-up. For more prevalent diseases we observed large risk ratio biases towards the null value, even with near perfect diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5985700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59857002018-06-11 Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies Haine, Denis Dohoo, Ian Dufour, Simon Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Using imperfect tests may lead to biased estimates of disease frequency and measures of association. Many studies have looked into the effect of misclassification on statistical inferences. These evaluations were either within a cross-sectional study framework, assessing biased prevalence, or for cohort study designs, evaluating biased incidence rate or risk ratio estimates based on misclassification at one of the two time-points (initial assessment or follow-up). However, both observations at risk and incident cases can be wrongly identified in longitudinal studies, leading to selection and misclassification biases, respectively. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the relative impact of selection and misclassification biases resulting from misclassification, together, on measures of incidence and risk ratio. To investigate impact on measure of disease frequency, data sets from a hypothetical cohort study with two samples collected one month apart were simulated and analyzed based on specific test and disease characteristics, with no elimination of disease during the sampling interval or clustering of observations. Direction and magnitude of bias due to selection, misclassification, and total bias was assessed for diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 and 0.8 to 1.0, respectively, and for specific disease contexts, i.e., disease prevalences of 5 and 20%, and disease incidences of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 cases/animal-month. A hypothetical exposure with known strength of association was also generated. A total of 1,000 cohort studies of 1,000 observations each were simulated for these six disease contexts where the same diagnostic test was used to identify observations at risk at beginning of the cohort and incident cases at its end. Our results indicated that the departure of the estimates of disease incidence and risk ratio from their true value were mainly a function of test specificity, and disease prevalence and incidence. The combination of the two biases, at baseline and follow-up, revealed the importance of a good to excellent specificity relative to sensitivity for the diagnostic test. Small divergence from perfect specificity extended quickly to disease incidence over-estimation as true prevalence increased and true incidence decreased. A highly sensitive test to exclude diseased subjects at baseline was of less importance to minimize bias than using a highly specific one at baseline. Near perfect diagnostic test attributes were even more important to obtain a measure of association close to the true risk ratio, according to specific disease characteristics, especially its prevalence. Low prevalent and high incident disease lead to minimal bias if disease is diagnosed with high sensitivity and close to perfect specificity at baseline and follow-up. For more prevalent diseases we observed large risk ratio biases towards the null value, even with near perfect diagnosis. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5985700/ /pubmed/29892604 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00099 Text en Copyright © 2018 Haine, Dohoo and Dufour http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Haine, Denis
Dohoo, Ian
Dufour, Simon
Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title_full Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title_fullStr Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title_full_unstemmed Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title_short Selection and Misclassification Biases in Longitudinal Studies
title_sort selection and misclassification biases in longitudinal studies
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29892604
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00099
work_keys_str_mv AT hainedenis selectionandmisclassificationbiasesinlongitudinalstudies
AT dohooian selectionandmisclassificationbiasesinlongitudinalstudies
AT dufoursimon selectionandmisclassificationbiasesinlongitudinalstudies