Copeland K T, Checkoway H, McMichael A J, Holbrook R H
Am J Epidemiol. 1977 May;105(5):488-95. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112408.
Lack of bias in the estimation of relative effect in epidemiologic studies depends on the internal validity of the study. This paper conveys in graphic and tabular form the direction and magnitude of bias due to misclassification of study subjects. A series of computer-generated graphs shows that the departure of the estimate of effect (relative risk or odds ratio) from its true value is a function of sensitivity and specificity (measures of classification validity), disease frequency, and exposure frequency. The discussion of bias emphasizes misclassification of the "outcome" variable; i.e., disease occurrence in a cohort study and exposure rate in a case-control study. Examples are used to illustrate that the magnitude of the bias can be large under circumstances which occur readily in epidemiologic research. When misclassification is equal for the two compared groups, the estimate is biased toward the null value, and in some instances beyond; when differential misclassification occurs (as in selective recall in case-control studies) the bias can be in either direction, and may be great. Formulas are derived to estimate the underlying true value of the relative risk or odds ratio using the investigator's observations together with the estimated sensitivity and specificity of the classification procedure.
流行病学研究中相对效应估计的无偏性取决于研究的内部效度。本文以图表形式呈现了因研究对象分类错误导致的偏倚方向和程度。一系列计算机生成的图表表明,效应估计值(相对风险或比值比)与其真实值的偏差是灵敏度和特异度(分类效度的指标)、疾病频率和暴露频率的函数。对偏倚的讨论重点在于“结局”变量的分类错误;即在队列研究中疾病的发生情况以及病例对照研究中的暴露率。通过实例说明,在流行病学研究中容易出现的情况下,偏倚的程度可能很大。当两个比较组的分类错误相同时,估计值向无效值偏倚,在某些情况下甚至超过无效值;当出现差异分类错误时(如病例对照研究中的选择性回忆),偏倚可能朝任何一个方向,且可能很大。推导了使用研究者的观察结果以及分类程序的估计灵敏度和特异度来估计相对风险或比值比潜在真实值的公式。