Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Improved Correction of Misclassification Bias With Bootstrap Imputation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Improved Correction of Misclassification Bias With Bootstrap Imputation
Do you wish to request the book?
Improved Correction of Misclassification Bias With Bootstrap Imputation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Improved Correction of Misclassification Bias With Bootstrap Imputation
2018
Overview
OBJECTIVE:Diagnostic codes used in administrative database research can create bias due to misclassification. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) can correct for this bias, requires only code sensitivity and specificity, but may return invalid results. Bootstrap imputation (BI) can also address misclassification bias but traditionally requires multivariate models to accurately estimate disease probability. This study compared misclassification bias correction using QBA and BI.
STUDY DESIGN:Serum creatinine measures were used to determine severe renal failure status in 100,000 hospitalized patients. Prevalence of severe renal failure in 86 patient strata and its association with 43 covariates was determined and compared with results in which renal failure status was determined using diagnostic codes (sensitivity 71.3%, specificity 96.2%). Differences in results (misclassification bias) were then corrected with QBA or BI (using progressively more complex methods to estimate disease probability).
RESULTS:In total, 7.4% of patients had severe renal failure. Imputing disease status with diagnostic codes exaggerated prevalence estimates [median relative change (range), 16.6% (0.8%–74.5%)] and its association with covariates [median (range) exponentiated absolute parameter estimate difference, 1.16 (1.01–2.04)]. QBA produced invalid results 9.3% of the time and increased bias in estimates of both disease prevalence and covariate associations. BI decreased misclassification bias with increasingly accurate disease probability estimates.
CONCLUSIONS:QBA can produce invalid results and increase misclassification bias. BI avoids invalid results and can importantly decrease misclassification bias when accurate disease probability estimates are used.
Publisher
Copyright Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies
