Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Björk, J.
Right arrow Articles by Strömberg, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Björk, J.
Right arrow Articles by Strömberg, U.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:154-160
© International Epidemiological Association 2002


Theory and Methods

Effects of systematic exposure assessment errors in partially ecologic case-control studies

Jonas Björk and Ulf Strömberg

Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund, Sweden.

Jonas Björk, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University Hospital, SE-221 85 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: Jonas.Bjork{at}ymed.lu.se

Abstract

Background In ecologic studies, group-level rather than individual-level exposure data are used. When using group-level exposure data, established by sufficiently large samples of individual exposure assessments, the bias of the effect estimate due to sampling errors or random assessment errors at the individual-level is generally negligible. In contrast, systematic assessment errors may produce more pronounced errors in the group-level exposure measures, leading to bias in ecologic analyses.

Methods We focus on effects of systematic exposure assessment errors in partially ecologic case-control studies. Individual-level information on disease status, group membership, and covariates is obtained from registries, whereas the exposure is a group-level measure obtained from an established exposure database. Effects on bias and coverage of 95% CI in various error situations are investigated under the linear risk model, using both simulated and empirical ecologic data on exposures that are binary at the individual level.

Results Our simulations suggest that the bias produced by systematic exposure assessment errors under the linear risk model is generally approximately equal to the ratio of the slope bias and the intercept bias in ordinary linear regression with measurement errors in the independent variable. Consequently, bias in either direction can occur. Exposure assessment errors that systematically distort the group-level exposure measures have more pronounced effects on bias and coverage than errors producing random fluctuations of the group-level measures, which imply bias towards the null.

Conclusions The results indicate the need for careful consideration of potential effects of systematic distortions of the group-level exposure measures when constructing and applying group-level exposure databases, such as probabilistic job exposure matrices.

Keywords Bias (epidemiology), case-control studies, ecologic studies, epidemiological methods, models, occupational exposure, odds ratio, statistical

Accepted 30 May 2001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
J. Tan, L. Mu, J. Huang, S. Yu, B. Chen, and J. Yin
An initial investigation of the association between the SARS outbreak and weather: with the view of the environmental temperature and its variation
J Epidemiol Community Health, March 1, 2005; 59(3): 186 - 192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
T. Webster
Commentary: Does the spectre of ecologic bias haunt epidemiology?
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 161 - 162.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.