PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Exploring selection bias in COVID-19 research: Simulations and prospective analyses of two UK cohort studies

medRxiv
2021
  • 0
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 0
    Captures
  • 1
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Mentions
    1
    • News Mentions
      1
      • News
        1

Most Recent News

Factors associated with having data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity

In a recent study posted to the medRxiv* preprint server, researchers utilized pre-pandemic information from two UK-based observational population studies – the Avon Longitudinal Study

Article Description

Background Non-random selection into analytic subsamples could introduce selection bias in observational studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity (e.g. including only those have had a COVID-19 PCR test). We explored the potential presence and impact of selection in such studies using data from self-report questionnaires and national registries. Methods Using pre-pandemic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (mean age=27.6 (standard deviation [SD]=0.5); 49% female) and UK Biobank (UKB) (mean age=56 (SD=8.1); 55% female) with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19 (UKB only), we investigated predictors of selection into COVID-19 analytic subsamples. We then conducted empirical analyses and simulations to explore the potential presence, direction, and magnitude of bias due to selection when estimating the association of body mass index (BMI) with SARS-CoV-2 infection and death-with-COVID-19. Results In both ALSPAC and UKB a broad range of characteristics related to selection, sometimes in opposite directions. For example, more educated participants were more likely to have data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in ALSPAC, but less likely in UKB. We found bias in many simulated scenarios. For example, in one scenario based on UKB, we observed an expected odds ratio of 2.56 compared to a simulated true odds ratio of 3, per standard deviation higher BMI. Conclusion Analyses using COVID-19 self-reported or national registry data may be biased due to selection. The magnitude and direction of this bias depends on the outcome definition, the true effect of the risk factor, and the assumed selection mechanism.

Bibliographic Details

Louise A.C. Millard; Alba Fernández-Sanlés; Alice R. Carter; Rachael Hughes; Kate Tilling; Daniel Major-Smith; Gareth J. Griffith; Gemma L. Clayton; Emily Kawabata; George Davey Smith; Deborah A. Lawlor; Maria Carolina Borges; Tim P. Morris

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Medicine

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know