Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 22, 2026

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
Published on: February 2, 2017
Systematic review of statistical approaches to quantify, or correct for, measurement error in a continuous exposure
Derrick A Bennett1, Denise Landry2, Julian Little2
1Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. derrick.bennett@ndph.ox.ac.uk.
Background:
Several statistical approaches have been proposed to assess and correct for exposure measurement error. We aimed to provide a critical overview of the most common approaches used in nutritional epidemiology.
Methods:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and CINAHL were searched for reports published in English up to May 2016 in order to ascertain studies that described methods aimed to quantify and/or correct for measurement error for a continuous exposure in nutritional epidemiology using a calibration study.
Results:
We identified 126 studies, 43 of which described statistical methods and 83 that applied any of these methods to a real dataset. The statistical approaches in the eligible studies were grouped into: a) approaches to quantify the relationship between different dietary assessment instruments and "true intake", which were mostly based on correlation analysis and the method of triads; b) approaches to adjust point and interval estimates of diet-disease associations for measurement error, mostly based on regression calibration analysis and its extensions. Two approaches (multiple imputation and moment reconstruction) were identified that can deal with differential measurement error.
Conclusions:
For regression calibration, the most common approach to correct for measurement error used in nutritional epidemiology, it is crucial to ensure that its assumptions and requirements are fully met. Analyses that investigate the impact of departures from the classical measurement error model on regression calibration estimates can be helpful to researchers in interpreting their findings. With regard to the possible use of alternative methods when regression calibration is not appropriate, the choice of method should depend on the measurement error model assumed, the availability of suitable calibration study data and the potential for bias due to violation of the classical measurement error model assumptions. On the basis of this review, we provide some practical advice for the use of methods to assess and adjust for measurement error in nutritional epidemiology.
Related Concept Videos
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis
Random and Systematic Errors
