Difference between revisions of "Diagnostic bias"
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) m |
Bosmana fem (talk | contribs) m (→References) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
=References= | =References= | ||
| − | </ | + | <references/> |
[[Category:Selection bias and case-control studies]] | [[Category:Selection bias and case-control studies]] | ||
Revision as of 13:46, 12 April 2023
This happens when the diagnostic approach is related to knowledge of the subject's prior exposure to a putative cause (e.g. taking a certain drug, being exposed in an outbreak etc [1]).
Example: Suppose a case-control study is conducted to test if oral contraceptives (OC) are a risk factor for endometrial cancer. A group of cases and an equal number of controls are selected. Cases are selected at GP (family doctor) surgeries. Cases that use OC may be more likely to be offered to screen for endometrial cancer either systematically or because of a side-effect of OC (breakthrough bleeding). The chance of undertaking detection of endometrial cancer is, therefore, higher among OC users than among other cases, i.e. the use of OC may cause the search for endometrial cancer (by causing symptomless patients to bleed) rather than causing the cancer itself. The result is that a higher proportion of cases report using OC, with an overestimation of 'a, leading to an overestimation of the odds ratio.
| Exposure | Cases of endometrial cancer | Controls | OR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uses OC | a↑ | b | OR↑ |
| Doesn't use OC | c | d | reference |
| Total |
Sackett [1] describes this example, where an innocent exposure may become a suspect if, rather than causing a disease, it causes a sign or symptom which precipitates a search for a disease, as 'unmasking (detection signal) bias'.
References
Root > Assessing the burden of disease and risk assessment > Field Epidemiology > Measurement in Field Epidemiology > Problems with Measurement > Bias > Selection Bias > Selection bias and case-control studies
