LAUSR

Prevalence estimates are fundamental to epidemiological studies. Although they are highly vulnerable to misclassification bias, the risk of bias assessment of prevalence estimates is often neglected. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) can effectively estimate misclassification bias in epidemiological studies; however, relatively few applications are identified. One reason for its low usage is the lack of knowledge and tools for these methods among researchers. To expand existing evaluation methods, based on the QBA principles, three indicators are proposed. One is the relative bias that quantifies the bias direction through its signs and the bias magnitude through its quantity. The second is the critical point of positive test proportion in case of a misclassification bias that is equal to zero. The third is the bound of positive test proportion equal to adjusted prevalence at misclassification bias level α. These indicators express the magnitude, direction and uncertainty of the misclassification bias of prevalence estimates, respectively. Using these indicators, it was found that slight oscillations of the positive test proportion within a certain range can lead to substantial increases in the misclassification bias. Hence, researchers should account for misclassification error analytically when interpreting the significance of adjusted prevalence for epidemiological decision making. This highlights the importance of applying QBA to these analyses. In this article, we have used three real-world cases to illustrate the characteristics and calculation methods of presented indicators. To facilitate application, an Excel-based calculation tool is provided.