Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Jul 17:3:7.
doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-3-7.

Non-differential measurement error does not always bias diagnostic likelihood ratios towards the null

Affiliations

Non-differential measurement error does not always bias diagnostic likelihood ratios towards the null

G T Fosgate. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. .

Abstract

Diagnostic test evaluations are susceptible to random and systematic error. Simulated non-differential random error for six different error distributions was evaluated for its effect on measures of diagnostic accuracy for a brucellosis competitive ELISA. Test results were divided into four categories: < 0.25, 0.25-0.349, 0.35-0.499, and > or = 0.50 proportions inhibition for calculation of likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios. Larger variance components of the error structure resulted in larger accuracy attenuations as measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve and systematic components appeared to cause little bias. Added error caused point estimates of likelihood ratios to be biased towards the null value (1.0) for all categories except 0.25-0.349. Results for the 0.35-0.499 category also extended beyond the null value for some error structures. Diagnostic odds ratios were consistently biased towards the null when the < 0.25 category was considered the reference level. Non-differential measurement error can lead to biased results in the quantitative evaluation of ELISA and the direction is not always towards the null value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of c-ELISA proportion inhibition results for 656 B. abortus uninfected cattle and water buffalo from Trinidad with added error from a single iteration of a simulation study and summed over 5% proportion inhibition intervals.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of c-ELISA proportion inhibition results for 126 B. abortus infected cattle and water buffalo with added error from a single iteration of a simulation study and summed over 5% proportion inhibition intervals.

References

    1. Wacholder S, Hartge P, Lubin JH, Dosemeci M. Non-differential misclassification and bias towards the null: a clarification.[comment] Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 1995;52:557–558. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology : beyond the basics. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen; 2000. pp. 125–126.
    1. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology : an introduction. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press; 2002. pp. 94–95.
    1. Webster's new millennium dictionary ofEnglish Preview edn. Long Beach, CA: Lexicon Publishing Group; 2005. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=systematic%20error 3-16-06.
    1. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2004;159:882–890. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh101. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources