This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Holford, T. R. Articles by Stack, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Holford, T. R. Articles by Stack, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Study design for epidemiologic studies with measurement error

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Catharine Stack

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

Exposure measurement error in epidemiological studies is recognized as a feature that must be considered because of the potential bias that can result in estimates of the exposure-disease association. Most of the work to date has focused on methods of analysis that adjust for the resultant bias, but the implications of this work to the design of epidemiologic studies is not as well understood. An overview of the issues involved in the use of methods for dealing with errors in exposure information is discussed along with some design options that have been proposed for providing information necessary for their use. Validation studies compare somewhat crude and inexpensive measures of exposure to a gold standard, and study designs that incorporate these into the overall plan can realize some advantages in terms of cost. In addition, repeated assessments of exposure can realize efficiency for measures of exposure that are unbiased. However, much work remains to be done in the development of efficient designs for studying disease aetiology and prevention.

Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, 339-358 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/096228029500400405


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Sturmer, S. Schneeweiss, J. Avorn, and R. J. Glynn Adjusting Effect Estimates for Unmeasured Confounding with Validation Data using Propensity Score Calibration Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2005; 162(3): 279 - 289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Myer, C Morroni, and B G Link Impact of measurement error in the study of sexually transmitted infections Sex Transm Inf, August 1, 2004; 80(4): 318 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Devine The Impact of Ignoring Measurement Error when Estimating Sample Size for Epidemiologic Studies Eval Health Prof, September 1, 2003; 26(3): 315 - 339. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. White Design and Interpretation of Studies of Differential Exposure Measurement Error Am. J. Epidemiol., March 1, 2003; 157(5): 380 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Thurigen, D. Spiegelman, M. Blettner, C. Heuer, and H. Brenner Measurement error correction using validation data: a review of methods and their applicability in case-control studies Statistical Methods in Medical Research, October 1, 2000; 9(5): 447 - 474. [Abstract] [PDF]