Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools.

Wood, Codie JC; Tilling, Kate; Bartlett, Jonathan WORCID logo; and Hughes, Rachael A (2025) Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools. BMC medical research methodology, 25 (1). 187-. ISSN 1471-2288 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02635-w
Copy

BACKGROUND: Measurement error and misclassification can cause bias or loss of power in epidemiological studies. Software performing quantitative bias analysis (QBA) to assess the sensitivity of results to mismeasurement are available. However, QBA is still not commonly used in practice, partly due to a lack of knowledge of these software implementations. The features and particular use cases of these tools have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: We reviewed and summarised the latest available software tools for QBA in relation to mismeasured variables in health research. We searched the electronic database Web of Science for studies published between [Formula: see text] January 2014 and [Formula: see text] May 2024 (inclusive). We included epidemiological studies that described the use of software tools for QBA in relation to mismeasurement. We also searched for tools catalogued on the CRAN archive, in Stata manuals, and via Stata's net command, available from within Stata or from the IDEAS/RePEc database. Tools were included if they were purpose-built, had documentation, and were applicable to epidemiological research. Data on the tools' features and use cases were then extracted from the full article texts and software documentation. RESULTS: 17 publicly available software tools for QBA were identified, accessible via R, Stata, and online web tools. The tools cover various types of analysis, including regression, contingency tables, mediation analysis, longitudinal analysis, survival analysis and instrumental variable analysis. However, there is a lack of software tools performing QBA for misclassification of categorical variables and measurement error outside of the classical model. Additionally, the existing tools often require specialist knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of several software tools, there are still gaps in the existing collection of tools that need to be addressed to enable wider usage of QBA in epidemiological studies. Efforts should be made to create new tools to assess multiple mismeasurement scenarios simultaneously, and also to increase the clarity of documentation for existing tools, and provide tutorials and examples for their usage. By doing so, the uptake of QBA techniques in epidemiology can be improved, leading to more accurate and reliable research findings.


picture_as_pdf
Wood-etal-2025-Quantitive-bias-analysis-for-mismeasured.pdf
subject
Published Version
Available under Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0

View Download

Atom BibTeX OpenURL ContextObject in Span Multiline CSV OpenURL ContextObject Dublin Core Dublin Core MPEG-21 DIDL Data Cite XML EndNote HTML Citation JSON MARC (ASCII) MARC (ISO 2709) METS MODS RDF+N3 RDF+N-Triples RDF+XML RIOXX2 XML Reference Manager Refer Simple Metadata ASCII Citation EP3 XML
Export

Downloads