You are here

Regression dilution methods for meta-analysis: assessing long-term variability in plasma fibrinogen among 27,247 adults in 15 prospective studies.

TitleRegression dilution methods for meta-analysis: assessing long-term variability in plasma fibrinogen among 27,247 adults in 15 prospective studies.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2006
AuthorsWood, AM, White, I, Thompson, SG, Lewington, S, Danesh, J
Corporate/Institutional AuthorsFibrinogen Studies Collaboration,
JournalInt J Epidemiol
Volume35
Issue6
Pagination1570-8
Date Published2006 Dec
ISSN0300-5771
KeywordsAdult, Age Factors, Bias, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Fibrinogen, Humans, Male, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Prospective Studies, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Smoking, Time Factors
Abstract<p><b>BACKGROUND: </b>Within-person variability in measured values of a risk factor can bias its association with disease. The extent of this regression dilution bias for plasma fibrinogen was investigated using repeat measurement data collected at varying time intervals on 27 247 adults in 15 prospective studies.</p><p><b>METHODS: </b>Regression dilution ratios (RDRs) were estimated from a linear regression of repeat measurements on baseline values in each study and for each time interval, and pooled allowing for within- and between-study heterogeneity. RDRs were estimated both without and with adjustment for confounders, and factors were investigated that might influence the RDRs.</p><p><b>RESULTS: </b>The unadjusted overall RDR was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.55), which decreased to 0.46 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.49) after adjustment for age, sex and measured values of other established vascular risk factors. The RDR did not vary materially by assay method, age, sex or smoking status, but decreased at higher levels of baseline fibrinogen.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION: </b>It is appropriate to use an RDR of 0.5 to correct approximately for regression dilution bias in plasma fibrinogen values; however, this correction factor may produce somewhat conservative hazard ratios in adjusted analyses, at higher fibrinogen concentrations and in follow-up beyond a decade. More generally, the methods described in this report have widespread applicability to quantifying regression dilution bias in repeatability data from multiple prospective studies.</p>
DOI10.1093/ije/dyl233
Alternate JournalInt J Epidemiol
PubMed ID17148467