Hansen K S
Department of Epidemiology, Odense University Medical School, Denmark.
Am J Ind Med. 1996 Oct;30(4):392-7. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199610)30:4<392::AID-AJIM3>3.0.CO;2-Y.
The accuracy of exposure data from surrogate sources such as spouses and colleagues was estimated in an historical cohort of 10,059 metal workers. In a 2 year period from 1986 to 1988, 118 subjects who, in 1986, answered a questionnaire on occupational exposures and smoking habits had died. In 1988 spouses and long-term colleagues were interviewed on the same items. Separate contingency tables were developed comparing case and spouse/colleague responses. Percentage of concordance, sensitivity, specificity, the kappa measure of agreement, and a bias factor (exposed to nonexposed ratio between surrogates and cohort members) were calculated. Compared with the index subjects indications, the colleagues' and spouses' reports represented a moderately high level of concordance on occupational exposures, primarily for exposures with a moderate prevalence. There was a considerable under-reporting on both occupational exposures and smoking habits expressed in low values of sensitivity and bias factor values below one. The described misclassification of exposure data by using surrogate information might seriously influence the risk estimation and introduce bias.
在一个由10,059名金属工人组成的历史性队列中，评估了来自配偶和同事等替代来源的暴露数据的准确性。在1986年至1988年的两年期间，1986年回答了关于职业暴露和吸烟习惯问卷的118名受试者死亡。1988年，就相同项目对配偶和长期同事进行了访谈。编制了单独的列联表，比较病例与配偶/同事的回答。计算了一致性百分比、敏感性、特异性、kappa一致性度量以及偏差因子（替代者与队列成员之间的暴露与未暴露比例）。与指标受试者的指征相比，同事和配偶的报告在职业暴露方面表现出中等程度的高度一致性，主要是对于患病率适中的暴露。在敏感性值较低且偏差因子值低于1的情况下，职业暴露和吸烟习惯方面都存在相当程度的漏报。使用替代信息对暴露数据进行的上述错误分类可能会严重影响风险估计并引入偏差。
