IJE Advance Access originally published online on May 18, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(4):1074-1081; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl097
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article |
Multiple-imputation for measurement-error correction
* Corresponding author. Department of Epidemiology, 615 North Wolfe Street—E7640, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. E-mail: scole{at}jhsph.edu
Background There are many methods for measurement-error correction. These methods remain rarely used despite the ubiquity of measurement error.
Methods Treating measurement error as a missing-data problem, the authors show how multiple-imputation for measurement-error (MIME) correction can be done using SAS software and evaluate the approach with a simulation experiment.
Results Based on hypothetical data from a planned cohort study of 600 children with chronic kidney disease, the estimated hazard ratio for end-stage renal disease from the complete data was 2.0 [95% confidence limits (95% CL) 1.4, 2.8] and was reduced to 1.5 (95% CL 1.1, 2.1) using a misclassified exposure of low glomerular filtration rate at study entry (sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.7). The MIME correction hazard ratio was 2.0 (95% CL 1.2, 3.3), the regression calibration (RC) hazard ratio was 2.0 (95% CL 1.1, 3.7), and restriction to a 25% validation substudy yielded a hazard ratio of 2.0 (95% CL 1.0, 3.7). Based on Monte Carlo simulations across eight scenarios, MIME was approximately unbiased, had approximately correct coverage, and was sometimes more powerful than misclassified or RC analyses. Using root mean squared error as a criterion, the MIME bias correction is sometimes outweighed by added imprecision.
Conclusion The choice between MIME and RC depends on performance, ease, and objectives. The usefulness of MIME correction in specific applications will depend upon the sample size or the proportion validated. MIME correction may be valuable in interpreting imperfectly measured epidemiological data.
Keywords Bias, measurement error, misclassification, missing data, multiple-imputation
Accepted 10 April 2006
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Cummings Propensity Scores Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, August 1, 2008; 162(8): 734 - 737. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. M Jurek, S. Greenland, and G. Maldonado Brief Report: How far from non-differential does exposure or disease misclassification have to be to bias measures of association away from the null? Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2008; 37(2): 382 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. R White Commentary: Dealing with measurement error: multiple imputation or regression calibration? Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2006; 35(4): 1081 - 1082. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|