Multiple-bias Sensitivity Analysis Using Bounds. Issue 5 (24th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Smith, Louisa H.; Mathur, Maya B.; VanderWeele, Tyler J.
• Is Part Of: Epidemiology. Volume 32:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 625
• Page End: 634
• Publication Date: 2021-06-24
• Subjects: Bias analysis -- Causal inference -- Differential misclassification -- Selection bias -- Unmeasured confounding; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 614.405
• DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001380
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1044-3983

Abstract

Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Abstract : Confounding, selection bias, and measurement error are well-known sources of bias in epidemiologic research. Methods for assessing these biases have their own limitations. Many quantitative sensitivity analysis approaches consider each type of bias individually, although more complex approaches are harder to implement or require numerous assumptions. By failing to consider multiple biases at once, researchers can underestimate—or overestimate—their joint impact. We show that it is possible to bound the total composite bias owing to these three sources and to use that bound to assess the sensitivity of a risk ratio to any combination of these biases. We derive bounds for the total composite bias under a variety of scenarios, providing researchers with tools to assess their total potential impact. We apply this technique to a study where unmeasured confounding and selection bias are both concerns and to another study in which possible differential exposure misclassification and confounding are concerns. The approach we describe, though conservative, is easier to implement and makes simpler assumptions than quantitative bias analysis. We provide R functions to aid implementation.