Correcting for exposure time in this study may have negated the finding of an association of RBC and infection, suggesting that both transfusion and infection are conditions that occur as a result of ICU stay but are not causally related.
While correcting for exposure misclassification is possible using frequentist methods, Bayesian methods were preferable for several reasons.
Analysis correcting for exposure bias may then be more appropriate [ 16], even though there appears to be little exposure bias between celecoxib and NSAIDs in arthritis trials.
To correct for exposure, all relative risk ratios were adjusted for the reported total number of miles driven during the 12-month study.
We recomputed the OR for subclinical hypothyroidism after correcting for exposure misclassification (i.e. by reclassifying false positives and false negatives) using our estimates of sensitivity and specificity and the prevalence of exposure (50%).
Bayesian methods to correct for exposure misclassification can sometimes circumvent these shortcomings, but the results are sensitive to assumptions about the magnitude and precision of misclassification of the exposure.
4 10 12 This study extends our understanding by providing the first position-specific injury rates, correcting for exposure, documenting that centre players had a higher injury incidence than other player functions.
Although the data were collected in the home environment of subjects, we were not able to correct for exposures in other environments, which is usually accomplished with personal air monitors.
Specific problems discussed are adequacy of outdoor monitors; the need to correct for exposures and time spent indoors; the need to have particle size distributions described and the chemistry of the particles presented.
Covariate effects were not fixed since their interpretation depends on whether they are corrected for the exposure effect.
However, corrected for previous radiation exposure calculated by dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis [ 21], the cumulative DFL-TOT was 64.8 Gy versus 27.9 Gy (P = 0.009).
