The phrase "any misclassification of use" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing the incorrect categorization or application of something, such as data, resources, or products.
Example: "We need to address any misclassification of use in our inventory system to ensure accurate tracking."
Alternatives: "any incorrect categorization of use" or "any erroneous classification of use".
Because the prescription data are prospectively recorded, any misclassification of NSAID use due to nonadherence or OTC use of aspirin or ibuprofen would generally bias measures of associations towards the null.
None the less, we did observe a significant relation between duration of PPI use and risk of hip fracture; any misclassification of PPI use before 2000 would be expected to attenuate our risk estimates.
Any misclassification of statin use (or outcome) if non-differential, would tend to bias the hazard ratios towards 1 thus under-estimating a potential association.
In additional subgroup analysis (not shown), critical indicators of perinatal transmission among women who reported no history of injection drug use but had hepatitis C coinfection more closely resembled non-IDUs, indicating that the effect of any misclassification of self-reported injection drug use was likely to have been minimal.
Because the definition of gout was based on doctors' diagnoses, a certain level of misclassification of use is inevitable.
This was done to minimise misclassification of use among people who received but did not fill the prescription or take the drug.
First, data on households that use a combination of solid and non-solid fuels were not available from the NDHS database, and misclassification of use of cooking fuels may have occurred.
For example, we assessed the potential misclassification of use by redefining exposure as receiving two prescriptions for therapy within a 3-month period, and redefining new user as requiring a therapy-free baseline period of 1 year.
In a second sensitivity analysis we assessed potential misclassification of use by redefining ever use of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone as receiving at least three prescriptions within a 12 month period, thus minimising the inclusion of patients who may not have been regular users or used these drugs sporadically.
Compared with the results of the primary analysis, this analysis yielded a slightly higher point estimate for pioglitazone (adjusted rate ratio 1.88, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 3.22) but a slightly lower one for rosiglitazone (1.11, 0.74 to 1.66), indicating minimal misclassification of use.
