Nonparticipation selection bias in the MOBI-Kids Study

2018 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 2001

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018

Study typecase_control

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Nonparticipation selection bias in the MOBI-Kids Study Turner MC, Gracia-Lavedan E, Momoli F, Langer CE, Castaño-Vinyals G, Kundi M, Maule M, Merletti F, Sadetzki S, Vermeulen R, Albert A, Alguacil J, Aragones N, Badia F, Bruchim R, Carretero G, Kojimahara N, Lacour B, Morales- Suarez-Varela M, Radon K, Remen T, Weinmann T, Yamaguchi N, Cardis E. Nonparticipation selection bias in the MOBI-Kids Study. Epidemiology. Oct 1, 2018. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000932. Abstract BACKGROUND: MOBI-Kids is a 14-country case-control study designed to investigate the potential effects of electromagnetic field exposure from mobile telecommunications devices on brain tumor risk in children and young adults conducted from 2010-2016. This work describes differences in cellular telephone use and personal characteristics among interviewed participants and refusers responding to a brief non-respondent questionnaire. It also assesses the potential impact of non-participationDrafts selection bias on study findings. METHODS: We compared non-respondent questionnaires completed by 77 case and 498 control refusers with responses from 683 interviewed cases and 1,501 controls (suspected appendicitis patients) in six countries (France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, and Spain). We derived selection bias factors and estimated inverse probability of selection weights for use in analysis of MOBI-Kids data. RESULTS: The prevalence of ever regular use was somewhat higher among interviewed participants than non- respondent questionnaire respondents aged 10-14 years (68% vs 62% controls, 63% vs 48% cases); in those 20- 24 years, the prevalence was ≥ 97%. Interviewed controls and cases in the 15-19- and 20-24-year age groups were more likely to have a time since start of use of 5+ years. Selection bias factors generally indicated a small underestimation in cellular telephone odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 0.96-0.97 for ever regular use and 0.92- 0.94 for time since start of use (5+ years), but varied in alternative hypothetical scenarios considered. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small numbers of non-respondent questionnaire respondents, findings generally indicated a small underestimation in cellular telephone ORs due to selective non-participation. Open access paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecase_control

Effect directionunclear

PopulationChildren and young adults (ages 10–24) in six countries (France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain) within the 14-country MOBI-Kids study

Sample size2759

ExposureRF · time since start of use (5+ years); ever regular use

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Interviewed participants reported somewhat higher prevalence of ever regular mobile phone use than non-respondent questionnaire respondents in ages 10–14 (controls 68% vs 62%; cases 63% vs 48%); prevalence was ≥97% in ages 20–24. Selection bias factors suggested a small underestimation of cellular telephone odds ratios due to selective non-participation (approximately 0.96–0.97 for ever regular use and 0.92–0.94 for time since start of use ≥5 years), with variation across hypothetical scenarios.

Outcomes measured

Nonparticipation/selection bias in mobile phone use exposure assessment
Selection bias factors for cellular telephone odds ratios (brain tumor risk context)

Limitations

Small numbers of non-respondent questionnaire respondents
Selection bias estimates varied under alternative hypothetical scenarios
Frequency/SAR and detailed exposure metrics not reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "case_control",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "time since start of use (5+ years); ever regular use"
  },
  "population": "Children and young adults (ages 10–24) in six countries (France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain) within the 14-country MOBI-Kids study",
  "sample_size": 2759,
  "outcomes": [
    "Nonparticipation/selection bias in mobile phone use exposure assessment",
    "Selection bias factors for cellular telephone odds ratios (brain tumor risk context)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Interviewed participants reported somewhat higher prevalence of ever regular mobile phone use than non-respondent questionnaire respondents in ages 10–14 (controls 68% vs 62%; cases 63% vs 48%); prevalence was ≥97% in ages 20–24. Selection bias factors suggested a small underestimation of cellular telephone odds ratios due to selective non-participation (approximately 0.96–0.97 for ever regular use and 0.92–0.94 for time since start of use ≥5 years), with variation across hypothetical scenarios.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Small numbers of non-respondent questionnaire respondents",
    "Selection bias estimates varied under alternative hypothetical scenarios",
    "Frequency/SAR and detailed exposure metrics not reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "MOBI-Kids",
    "nonparticipation",
    "selection bias",
    "case-control",
    "mobile telecommunications devices",
    "cellular telephone use",
    "brain tumor"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Study concerns mobile phone RF exposure and epidemiologic risk estimation; relevant to major EMF health evidence discussions."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1097/ede.0000000000000932
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library