Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Quantifying and reporting uncertainty from systematic errors.

Carl V Phillips1

  • 1University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston 77225, USA. carl.v.phillips@uth.tmc.edu

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)
|July 5, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Complexity does not create precision; the case of counting the number of vapers.

Global epidemiology·2026
Same author

Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want.

Global epidemiology·2024
Same author

How Much Ongoing Smoking Reduction is an Echo of the Initial Mass Education?

American journal of health behavior·2022
Same author

Potential effects of using non-combustible tobacco and nicotine products during pregnancy: a systematic review.

Harm reduction journal·2020
Same author

Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would).

International journal of environmental research and public health·2015
Same author

Letter by Rodu and Phillips regarding article, "Discontinuation of smokeless tobacco and mortality risk after myocardial infarction".

Circulation·2015
Same journal

Application of the E-value under non-proportional hazards.

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same journal

Can the All of Us sample be reweighted to mirror a nationally representative sample? A comparison of mortality predictors.

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same journal

Gut health, systemic inflammation, and linear growth among Indonesian infants: findings from the Action Against Stunting Hub observation cohort: Erratum.

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same journal

Evaluating Estimators in Partially Identified Models.

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same journal

Stratification and accumulation? Explaining changing mortality inequities between business owners and non-owners in the U.S. (1984-2022).

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same journal

Be wary of age-stratum aging in early-onset cancer trends.

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
See all related articles

Quantifying uncertainty from systematic error in epidemiological studies improves decision-making and research. This method estimates bias-corrected effects, offering a more complete picture than standard analyses.

Area of Science:

  • Epidemiology
  • Biostatistics
  • Health Policy

Background:

  • Standard epidemiological analyses often lack sufficient information for optimal decision-making.
  • Quantifying uncertainty, particularly from systematic error, is crucial for robust findings.
  • Improved reporting of uncertainty enhances policy, clinical decisions, research direction, and public understanding.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce a novel method for quantifying total uncertainty in epidemiologic findings.
  • To improve the utility of epidemiological results in policy and clinical decision-making.
  • To provide a more complete reporting of study results by accounting for systematic error.

Main Methods:

  • Estimating a probability distribution for a bias-corrected effect measure.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing externally-derived distributions of bias levels.
  • Employing Monte Carlo simulation to combine corrections for multiple biases by reversing error-inducing steps.
  • Applying bias-correction calculations similar to sensitivity analysis.

    • Main Results:

    • The proposed method provides a distribution of possible true values, offering more comprehensive results than traditional sensitivity analyses.
    • Demonstrated application to a study on phenylpropanolamine, illustrating its practical utility.
    • The approach quantifies uncertainty introduced by systematic error.

    Conclusions:

    • Quantified uncertainty from systematic error significantly enhances the contribution of epidemiology.
    • The method allows for a more complete and informative reporting of epidemiological study results.
    • This approach can lead to better-informed policy and clinical decisions and guide future research efforts.