Bias in relative odds estimation owing to imprecise measurement of correlated exposures
- 1 January 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Statistics in Medicine
- Vol. 11 (7) , 953-961
- https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780110712
Abstract
A series of graphs is presented that show the estimated degree of bias in logistic coefficient estimates for two correlated continuous exposures measured with imprecision. These graphs indicate that even when the correlation coefficient between the exposure of interest and a correlated exposure is as low as 0·2, imprecision in the measurement of the latter exposure can result in at least as serious bias in the logistic coefficient estimate for the exposure of interest as measurement imprecision in the exposure of interest itself. The implications for the design and interpretation of epidemiological studies are discussed.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- How independent are “independent” effects? relative risk estimation when correlated exposures are measured impreciselyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1991
- Declaring independence: why we should be cautious.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1990
- Misclassification in more than one factor in a case‐control study: A combination of Mantel‐Haenszel and maximum likelihood approachesStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- High-Density Lipoprotein — The Clinical Implications of Recent StudiesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1989
- Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within‐person measurement errorStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- Introduction. Errors‐in‐variables workshopStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- Latent class analysis in chronic disease epidemiologyStatistics in Medicine, 1985
- Methodological Issues in Case-Control Studies III:—The Effect of Joint Misclassification of Risk Factors and Confounding Factors upon Estimation and PowerInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1984
- Epidemiology as a Guide to Clinical DecisionsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1980