Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
2013
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2012-201813
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Misclassification of the mediator matters when estimating indirect effects

Abstract: If the research objective is to quantify the proportion of the total association that is due to mediation (ie, indirect effect), then minimising non-differential misclassification bias of the mediator is more important than that for the exposure. Misclassification bias is an important source of error when estimating direct and indirect effects.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
73
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
4
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Third, analyses of insurers, hospital-based surgeries, and survival were unlikely to have been affected (Chan, Gomez, O'Malley, Perkins, & Clark, 2006;Hall, Schulze, Groome, Mackillop, & Holowaty, 2006;Li, King, deGara, White, & Winget, 2012;Mallin et al, 2013;Verrill, 2010), and any modest errors very likely did not differ by socioeconomic factors (Chan et al, 2006). Such modest nondifferential errors on exposures, mediators, or outcomes suggest that any bias of findings would probably have been toward the null (Blakely, McKenzie, & Carter, 2013;Copeland, Checkoway, McMichael, & Holbrook, 1977;Jurek, Greenland, & Maldonado, 2008). That is, the magnitude of this study's observed Canadian advantages on colon cancer care and survival, as well as their mediation by HI, may all be slight underestimates.…”
Section: Potential Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, analyses of insurers, hospital-based surgeries, and survival were unlikely to have been affected (Chan, Gomez, O'Malley, Perkins, & Clark, 2006;Hall, Schulze, Groome, Mackillop, & Holowaty, 2006;Li, King, deGara, White, & Winget, 2012;Mallin et al, 2013;Verrill, 2010), and any modest errors very likely did not differ by socioeconomic factors (Chan et al, 2006). Such modest nondifferential errors on exposures, mediators, or outcomes suggest that any bias of findings would probably have been toward the null (Blakely, McKenzie, & Carter, 2013;Copeland, Checkoway, McMichael, & Holbrook, 1977;Jurek, Greenland, & Maldonado, 2008). That is, the magnitude of this study's observed Canadian advantages on colon cancer care and survival, as well as their mediation by HI, may all be slight underestimates.…”
Section: Potential Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assume the observed associations represent causal paths means assuming that measurement error between ethnicity and the mediators, and the mediators and cord-blood leptin, are minimal and/or are not correlated with each other [40]. Ethnicity was self-reported but verified by family tree information and country of birth of family members.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although we adjusted for variables related to patient case mix and organizational issues at the hospital and ICU levels, the multivariable analysis would not take into account other unmeasured factors, such as adherence to evidence-based medicine guidelines or nurse-to-patient ratios. Further, our ability to detect a relation between intensivist cover pattern and outcome may also have been reduced by nondifferential measurement bias, in which all variables (whether exposure or covariate) have the same error rate or the same probability for misclassification [28,29], because of random errors in survey responses, a phenomenon that would bias associations to the null. However, we attempted to minimize this possibility by developing the survey with standard rigorous methods and piloting extensively before administration to ensure a common interpretation of questions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%