Assessing the Impact of Exposure Misclassification in Case-Control Studies of Self-Reported Medication Use.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Nedghie Adrien, Richard F MacLehose, Martha M Werler, Mahsa M Yazdy, Matthew P Fox, Samantha E Parker
{"title":"Assessing the Impact of Exposure Misclassification in Case-Control Studies of Self-Reported Medication Use.","authors":"Nedghie Adrien, Richard F MacLehose, Martha M Werler, Mahsa M Yazdy, Matthew P Fox, Samantha E Parker","doi":"10.1111/ppe.13161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Empirically evaluating the potential impact of recall bias on observed associations of prenatal medication exposure is crucial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We sought to assess the effects of exposure misclassification on previous studies of the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in early pregnancy and increased risk of amniotic band syndrome (ABS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) on births from 1997 to 2011, we included 189 mothers of infants with ABS and 11,829 mothers of infants without congenital anomalies. We identified external studies of medication use during pregnancy to obtain validity parameters for a probabilistic bias analysis to adjust for exposure misclassification. Due to uncertainty about the transportability of these parameters, we conducted multidimensional bias analyses to explore combinations of values on the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When we assumed higher specificity in cases or higher sensitivity in controls, misclassification-adjusted estimates suggested confounding-adjusted estimates were attenuated. However, in a few instances, when we assumed greater sensitivity in the cases than the controls (and Sp ≥ 0.9), the misclassification-adjusted estimates suggested upward bias in the confounding-adjusted estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results from our bias analysis highlighted that the magnitude of bias depended on the mechanism and the extent of misclassification. However, the parameters available from the validation studies were not directly applicable to our study. In the absence of reliable validation studies, considering mechanisms of bias and simulation studies to outline combinations of plausible scenarios to better inform conclusions on the effects of these medications on pregnancy outcomes remains important.</p>","PeriodicalId":19698,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13161","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Empirically evaluating the potential impact of recall bias on observed associations of prenatal medication exposure is crucial.

Objective: We sought to assess the effects of exposure misclassification on previous studies of the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in early pregnancy and increased risk of amniotic band syndrome (ABS).

Methods: Using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) on births from 1997 to 2011, we included 189 mothers of infants with ABS and 11,829 mothers of infants without congenital anomalies. We identified external studies of medication use during pregnancy to obtain validity parameters for a probabilistic bias analysis to adjust for exposure misclassification. Due to uncertainty about the transportability of these parameters, we conducted multidimensional bias analyses to explore combinations of values on the results.

Results: When we assumed higher specificity in cases or higher sensitivity in controls, misclassification-adjusted estimates suggested confounding-adjusted estimates were attenuated. However, in a few instances, when we assumed greater sensitivity in the cases than the controls (and Sp ≥ 0.9), the misclassification-adjusted estimates suggested upward bias in the confounding-adjusted estimates.

Conclusions: Results from our bias analysis highlighted that the magnitude of bias depended on the mechanism and the extent of misclassification. However, the parameters available from the validation studies were not directly applicable to our study. In the absence of reliable validation studies, considering mechanisms of bias and simulation studies to outline combinations of plausible scenarios to better inform conclusions on the effects of these medications on pregnancy outcomes remains important.

评估自我报告用药病例对照研究中暴露错误分类的影响。
背景:实证评估回忆偏差对观察到的产前药物暴露相关性的潜在影响至关重要:我们试图评估暴露误分类对以往关于孕早期使用非甾体类抗炎药(NSAIDs)与羊膜带综合征(ABS)风险增加的研究的影响:利用全国出生缺陷预防研究(National Birth Defects Prevention Study,NBDPS)中 1997 年至 2011 年的出生数据,我们纳入了 189 位羊膜带综合征婴儿的母亲和 11829 位无先天性异常婴儿的母亲。我们确定了有关孕期用药的外部研究,以获得概率偏倚分析的有效性参数,从而调整暴露误分类。由于这些参数的可迁移性存在不确定性,我们进行了多维偏倚分析,以探讨不同数值组合对结果的影响:结果:当我们假设病例的特异性较高或对照组的敏感性较高时,误分类调整后的估计值表明混杂调整后的估计值有所降低。然而,在少数情况下,当我们假设病例的灵敏度高于对照组(且 Sp ≥ 0.9)时,误分类调整后的估计值表明混杂调整后的估计值存在向上偏差:我们的偏倚分析结果表明,偏倚的程度取决于误分类的机制和程度。然而,从验证研究中获得的参数并不能直接用于我们的研究。在缺乏可靠的验证研究的情况下,考虑偏倚机制和模拟研究以概述各种可能情况的组合,从而更好地得出这些药物对妊娠结局影响的结论仍然非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
84
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology crosses the boundaries between the epidemiologist and the paediatrician, obstetrician or specialist in child health, ensuring that important paediatric and perinatal studies reach those clinicians for whom the results are especially relevant. In addition to original research articles, the Journal also includes commentaries, book reviews and annotations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信