ReviewMeasurement error is often neglected in medical literature: a systematic review
Introduction
Measurement error is one of many key challenges to make valid inferences in biomedical research [1]. Errors in measurements can arise due to inaccuracy or imprecision of measurement instruments, data coding errors, self-reporting, or single measurements of variable longitudinal processes, such as biomarkers. With the increased use of data not originally intended for research, such as routine care data, “claims” databases, and other sources of “big data”, it is conceivable that measurement error is becoming increasingly prevalent in this field [2].
It is generally well accepted that measurement error and classification error (hereinafter collectively referred to as measurement error) in either the dependent variable (hereinafter outcome) or independent explanatory variables (hereinafter covariates; e.g., exposure and confounder variables) can introduce bias and imprecision to estimates of covariate–outcome relations. Among others, several textbooks [3], [4], [5], [6], methodological reviews [7], [8], and a tool-kit [9] have demonstrated how to examine, quantify, and correct for measurement error in a variety of settings encountered in epidemiology. Most of this work has been focused on measurement error in covariates given its conceived greater impact on studied relations than measurement error in the outcome [4]. Despite these resources, it is suspected that the attention it receives in applied medical and epidemiological studies is insufficient [10], [11].
Over a decade ago, a review of 57 randomly selected publications from three high-ranking epidemiology journals reported that 61% of the reviewed publications recognized the potential influence of measurement error, but only 28% made a qualitative assessment of its impact on their results, and only one quantified its potential impact on results [12]. In light of the increasing prevalence of measurement error in medical and epidemiological research and increasing availability of methods and software to account for measurement error, a new and more comprehensive investigation into current practice is necessary.
We conducted a systematic review to quantify the extent to which (possible) measurement error in covariates is addressed in recent medical and epidemiologic research published in high-impact journals. To guide the understanding of the results of the review, we briefly introduce key concepts in the field of measurement error.
Section snippets
Measurement error
Many variables of interest in medical research are subject to measurement error. Instead of an error-free and unobserved true value of a variable, researchers have to deal with an imperfectly measured observed value. For the remainder of this section, we consider the erroneous measurement and perfect measurement of a single underlying entity as different variables. Examples of variables prone to measurement error include the long-term average level of a variable biological process (such as
Methods
We performed a systematic review of original research published in 2016 in high-impact medical and epidemiological journals. Our aims were to (i) quantify and characterize the reporting of measurement error in a main exposure and/or confounder variables and their possible impact on study results and (ii) quantify and characterize the use of available methods for investigating or correcting for measurement error in the exposure and/or confounder variables.
Using the Thomson Reuters [20] InCites
Results
Fig. 1 depicts the number of included articles at each step of the review process. Of the 1178 articles found in PubMed, 565 (337 from Epidemiology journals and 228 from General & Internal Medicine Journals) were judged as original research satisfying our inclusion criteria. Of these, 247 (44%) directly addressed measurement error in some form. Characteristics of these included studies are found in Table 1. Eighteen of these publications (3% of the 565) investigated the possible impact of, or
Discussion
This review provides an overview of the attention given to measurement error in recent epidemiological and medical literature. We found that a high proportion (44%) reported on the (possible) presence of measurement error in one or more recorded variables. About 70% of these addressed measurement error in a qualitative manner only in the discussion section. In contrast, few publications (7%) used some form of measurement error analysis to investigate or correct the exposure–outcome relation for
References (48)
- et al.
Adjustment for regression dilution in epidemiological regression analyses
Ann Epidemiol
(1998) - et al.
Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine
N Engl J Med
(2016) Measurement error models
(1987)Measurement error and misclassification in statistics and epidemiology: impacts and bayesian adjustments
(2004)- et al.
Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective
(2006) Measurement error: models, methods and applications
(2010)Measurement error models
J Am Stat Assoc
(2000)Robust techniques for measurement error correction: a review
Stat Methods Med Res
(2008)- et al.
A toolkit for measurement error correction, with a focus on nutritional epidemiology
Stat Med
(2014)
Measurement error
A unified approach to measurement error and missing data: overview and applications
Sociol Methods Res
Exposure-measurement error is frequently ignored when interpreting epidemiologic study results
Eur J Epidemiol
Random measurement error: why worry? An example of cardiovascular risk factors
PLoS One
Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error
Stat Med
Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models
J Am Stat Assoc
A general method for dealing with misclassification in regression: the misclassification SIMEX
Biometrics
Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models
Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
InCites journal citation reports
Coffee consumption and incidence of lung cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
Int J Epidemiol
Long-term status and change of body fat distribution, and risk of colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study
Int J Epidemiol
Nonfasting mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia and risk of acute pancreatitis
JAMA Intern Med
Cited by (83)
Cross-institution natural language processing for reliable clinical association studies: a methodological exploration
2024, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyThe untapped potential of causal inference in cross-modal research
2024, Building and EnvironmentSensitivity analysis for random measurement error using regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation
2021, Global EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :Measurement error is common in biomedical research but often ignored [1,2].
Funding: This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-Vidi project 917.16.430 granted to R.H.H.G).
Conflicts of interest: None.