Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools
Codie J C Wood1,2,3, Kate Tilling4,5, Jonathan W Bartlett6
1Institute of Statistical Sciences, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK. codie.gerlach-wood@bristol.ac.uk.
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.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
05:51Assessing the Accuracy of Fitness Smartwatch Data for Cardiovascular and Physical Activity Monitoring: A Validation Study in Digital Health
Published on: February 21, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Software for Data Analysis and Clinical Trials
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Statistical Analysis: Overview
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Regression Toward the Mean