Assessing the Impact of Differential Measurement Error on Estimates of Fine Particle Mortality

Abstract Background Lifestyle intervention studies often use self-reported measures of diet as an outcome variable to measure changes in dietary intake. The presence of measurement error in self-reported diet due to participant failure to accurately report their diet is well known. Less familiar to researchers is differential measurement error, where the nature of measurement error differs by treatment group and/or time. Differential measurement error is often present in intervention studies and can result in biased estimates of the treatment effect and reduced power to detect treatment effects. Investigators need to be aware of the impact of differential measurement error when designing intervention studies that use self-reported measures. Methods We use simulation to assess the consequences of differential measurement error on the ability to estimate treatment effects in a two-arm randomized trial with two time points. We simulate data under a variety of scenarios, focusing on how different factors affect power to detect a treatment effect, bias of the treatment effect, and coverage of the 95% confidence interval of the treatment effect. Simulations use realistic scenarios based on data from the Trials of Hypertension Prevention Study. Simulated sample sizes ranged from 110-380 per group. Results Realistic differential measurement error seen in lifestyle intervention studies can require an increased sample size to achieve 80% power to detect a treatment effect and may result in a biased estimate of the treatment effect. Conclusions Investigators designing intervention studies that use self-reported measures should take differential measurement error into account by increasing their sample size, incorporating an internal validation study, and/or identifying statistical methods to correct for differential measurement error.

Download Full-text

Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation

European Journal of Epidemiology ◽

10.1007/s10654-021-00757-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alice R. Carter ◽

Eleanor Sanderson ◽

Gemma Hammerton ◽

Rebecca C. Richmond ◽

George Davey Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Measurement Error ◽

Causal Inference ◽

Mediation Analysis ◽

Instrumental Variable ◽

Real Data ◽

Mendelian Randomisation ◽

Differential Measurement ◽

Individual Level ◽

Differential Measurement Error ◽

Summary Data

AbstractMediation analysis seeks to explain the pathway(s) through which an exposure affects an outcome. Traditional, non-instrumental variable methods for mediation analysis experience a number of methodological difficulties, including bias due to confounding between an exposure, mediator and outcome and measurement error. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can be used to improve causal inference for mediation analysis. We describe two approaches that can be used for estimating mediation analysis with MR: multivariable MR (MVMR) and two-step MR. We outline the approaches and provide code to demonstrate how they can be used in mediation analysis. We review issues that can affect analyses, including confounding, measurement error, weak instrument bias, interactions between exposures and mediators and analysis of multiple mediators. Description of the methods is supplemented by simulated and real data examples. Although MR relies on large sample sizes and strong assumptions, such as having strong instruments and no horizontally pleiotropic pathways, our simulations demonstrate that these methods are unaffected by confounders of the exposure or mediator and the outcome and non-differential measurement error of the exposure or mediator. Both MVMR and two-step MR can be implemented in both individual-level MR and summary data MR. MR mediation methods require different assumptions to be made, compared with non-instrumental variable mediation methods. Where these assumptions are more plausible, MR can be used to improve causal inference in mediation analysis.

Download Full-text

Mendelian randomisation for mediation analysis: current methods and challenges for implementation

10.1101/835819 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Alice R Carter ◽

Eleanor Sanderson ◽

Gemma Hammerton ◽

Rebecca C Richmond ◽

George Davey Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Measurement Error ◽

Causal Inference ◽

Mediation Analysis ◽

Real Data ◽

Mendelian Randomisation ◽

Reverse Causality ◽

Differential Measurement ◽

Individual Level ◽

Differential Measurement Error ◽

Summary Data

AbstractMediation analysis seeks to explain the pathway(s) through which an exposure affects an outcome. Mediation analysis experiences a number of methodological difficulties, including bias due to confounding and measurement error. Mendelian randomisation (MR) can be used to improve causal inference for mediation analysis. We describe two approaches that can be used for estimating mediation analysis with MR: multivariable Mendelian randomisation (MVMR) and two-step Mendelian randomisation. We outline the approaches and provide code to demonstrate how they can be used in mediation analysis. We review issues that can affect analyses, including confounding, measurement error, weak instrument bias, and analysis of multiple mediators. Description of the methods is supplemented by simulated and real data examples. Although Mendelian randomisation relies on large sample sizes and strong assumptions, such as having strong instruments and no horizontally pleiotropic pathways, our examples demonstrate that it is unlikely to be affected by confounders of the exposure or mediator and the outcome, reverse causality and non-differential measurement error of the exposure or mediator. Both MVMR and two-step MR can be implemented in both individual-level MR and summary data MR, and can improve causal inference in mediation analysis.

Download Full-text