Bias in diet assessment methods - Consequences of collinearity and measurement errors on power and observed relative risks

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 1071-1079

  Elmståhl, Sölve ^a   Gullberg, Bo ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Diet; Epidemiological methods; Nutritional epidemiology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEVERAGE; CORRELATION FUNCTION; DIETARY INTAKE; ERROR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TIME;

AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; DIET SURVEYS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUTRITION ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWEDEN;

EID: 1842296913     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/26.5.1071     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. First international conference on dietary assessment methods: assessing diets to improve world health. Proceedings of a conference held in St Paul, MN, 1992. Am Clin Nutr 1994; 59 (Suppl.).
2. Kushi L. Gaps in epidemiologic research methods: design considerations for studies that use food-frequency questionnaires. Am Clin Nutr 1994; 59 (Suppl.): 180-84.
3. Kohlmeier L. Gaps in dietary assessment methodology: meal-vs list-based methods. Am Clin Nutr 1994; 59 (Suppl.): 175-79.
4. Riboli E, Elmståhl S, Saracci R, Lindgärde F, Gullberg B. The Malmö Food Study. Validity of two dietary assessment methods for measuring usual nutrient intake. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26 (Suppl. 1): S161-173.
5. Elmståhl S, Riboli E, Lindgärde F, Gullberg B, Saracci R. The Malmö Food Study. The relative validity of a modified diet history method and an extensive food frequency questionnaire for measuring food intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50: 143-51.
6. Tjønneland A, Overvad K, Haraldsdottir J, Bang S, Ewertz M, Moøller-Jensen O. Validation of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol 1991; 20: 906-12.
7. Pietinen P, Hartman A, Haapa E et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. I. Self-administrated food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet. Am J Epidemiol 1988; 128: 655-66.
8. Pietinen P, Hartman A, Haapa E et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. II. A qualitative food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 1988; 128: 667-76.
9. Willett W, Sampson L, Stampfer M et al. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 122: 51-65.
10. Rimm E, Giovannucci E, Stampfer M, Colditz G, Lilin L, Willett W. Reproducibility and validity of an expanded self-administrated semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire among male health professionals. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135: 1114-26.
11. Elmståhl S, Gullberg B, Riboli E, Saracci R, Lindgärde F. The reproducibility of a novel diet history method and an extensive food frequency questionnaire. The Malmö Food Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50: 134-42.
12. Chatterjee S, Haidi A. Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Regression. New York: John Wiley γ Sons, 1988, ch. 7.
13. Maddala G. Econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977, Ch. 13, pp. 304-05.
14. Flanders D, Drews C, Kosinski A. Methodology to correct for differential misclassification. Epidemiology 1995; 6: 152-56.
15. Walker A, Blettner M. Comparing imperfect measures of exposures. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 783-90.
16. Freudenheim J, Johnson N E, Wardr R L. Nutrient misclassification: bias in the odds ratio and loss of power in the Mantel test for trend. Im J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 232-38.
17. Wacholder S. When measurement errors correlate with truth: Surprising effects of nondifferential misclassification. Epidemiology 1995; 6: 157-61.
18. Brenner H. Inferences on the potential effects of presumed nondifferential exposure misclassification. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 136:289-94.
19. Wacholder S, Armstrong B, Hartge P. Validation studies using an alloyed gold standard. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 1251-58.
20. Rosner B, Spiegleman D, Willett W. Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for measurement error: the case of multiple covariates measured with error. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 132: 734-45.
21. Fung K, Howe G. Methodological issues in case-control studies III: The effect of joint misclassification of risk factors and confounding factors upon estimation and power. Int J Epidemiol 1984; 13: 366-70.
22. Wax Y. Collinearity diagnosis for a relative risk regression analysis: an application to assessment of diet-cancer relationship in epidemiological studies. Stat Med 1992; 11: 1273-87.
23. Plummer M, Clayton D, Kaaks R. Calibration in multi-centre cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 419-26.
24. Kuka J. Corrections for exposure measurement error in logistic regression models with an application to nutritional data. Stat Med 1994; 13: 1135-48.
25. Duffy S, Maximovitch D, Day N. External validation, repeat determination, and precision of risk estimation in misclassified exposure data in epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992; 46: 620-24.
26. Spiegelman D, Gray R. Cost-efficient study design for binary response data with Gaussian covariate measurement error. Biometrics 1991; 47: 851-69.
27. Smith P G, Day N E. The design of case-control studies; the influence of confounding and interaction effects. Int J Epidemiol 1984; 13: 356-65.