Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date





Volume 4

Inclusive Pages

Article number 155


Background: A simple sensitivity analysis technique was developed to assess the impact of misclassification and verify observed prevalence differences between distinct populations.

Methods: The prevalence of self-reported comorbid diseases in 4,331 women with surgically-diagnosed endometriosis was compared to published clinical and population-based prevalence estimates. Disease prevalence misclassification was assessed by assuming over-reporting in the study sample and under-reporting in the general (comparison) population. Over- and under-reporting by 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% was used to create a 5×5 table for each disease. The new prevalences represented by each table cell were compared by p-values, prevalence odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Three misclassification patterns were observed: 1) differences remained significant except at high degrees (>50%) of misclassification; 2) minimal (10%) misclassification negated any observed difference; and 3) with some (25-50%) misclassification, the difference disappeared, and the direction of significance changed at higher levels (>50%).

Conclusions: This sensitivity analysis enabled us to verify observed prevalence differences. This useful, simple approach is for comparing prevalence estimates between distinct populations.


Reproduced with permission of OMICS Publishing Group, Epidemiology.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Open Access