Epidemiologic analyses with error-prone exposures: review of current practice and recommendations
Annals of Epidemiology, ISSN: 1047-2797, Vol: 28, Issue: 11, Page: 821-828
2018
- 54Citations
- 65Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations54
- Citation Indexes53
- CrossRef53
- 52
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures65
- Readers65
- 65
Review Description
Variables in observational studies are commonly subject to measurement error, but the impact of such errors is frequently ignored. As part of the STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies Initiative, a task group on measurement error and misclassification seeks to describe the current practice for acknowledging and addressing measurement error. Task group on measurement error and misclassification conducted a literature survey of four types of research studies that are typically impacted by exposure measurement error: (1) dietary intake cohort studies, (2) dietary intake population surveys, (3) physical activity cohort studies, and (4) air pollution cohort studies. The survey revealed that while researchers were generally aware that measurement error affected their studies, very few adjusted their analysis for the error. Most articles provided incomplete discussion of the potential effects of measurement error on their results. Regression calibration was the most widely used method of adjustment. Methods to correct for measurement error are available but require additional data regarding the error structure. There is a great need to incorporate such data collection within study designs and improve the analytical approach. Increased efforts by investigators, editors, and reviewers are needed to improve presentation of research when data are subject to error.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104727971830156X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.09.001; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85054439650&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316629; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S104727971830156X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.09.001
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know