A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research

被引:26
|
作者
Stone, Jennifer C. [1 ,2 ]
Glass, Kathryn [3 ]
Clark, Justin [4 ]
Munn, Zachary [5 ]
Tugwell, Peter [6 ]
Doi, Suhail A. R. [7 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Populat Hlth, Dept Hlth Serv Res & Policy, Canberra, ACT, Australia
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Hlth Evidence, SYRCLE, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Australian Natl Univ, Natl Ctr Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, Res Sch Populat Hlth, Canberra, ACT, Australia
[4] Bond Univ, Ctr Res Evidence Based Practice, Southport, Qld, Australia
[5] Univ Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Inst, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[6] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[7] Qatar Univ, Coll Med, Dept Populat Med, Doha, Qatar
关键词
bias; meta-analysis; methodology; quality; scale; quality score; risk of bias; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; CRITICAL-APPRAISAL TOOL; DESIGN AFFECTS OUTCOMES; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; STRUCTURAL APPROACH; EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE; METHOD GUIDELINES; PUBLIC-HEALTH; BERKSONS BIAS;
D O I
10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Methodological flaws, limitations, and inadequate practices in research are well known and pose threats to the internal validity of any research study. However, there are ways of safeguarding research conduct to reduce the chance of research producing distorted results. Numerous tools now exist to assess the incorporation of such safeguards into primary research studies (also known as quality and/or risk-of-bias assessment). These tools typically include a variety of items that are then checked against those implemented in the study. Despite a lot of research in this area, no comprehensive generic classification of safeguards across study designs exist, although attempts have been made to clarify aspects of this. We review the developments in this area as well as use preliminary data from 100 methodological studies to illustrate our proposed approach. We conclude by proposing a new framework for identifying research studies at risk of being biased and the information in this article will promote a unification of the diverse approaches to facilitating bias assessment in clinical research.
引用
收藏
页码:106 / 120
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale demonstrated a unified framework for bias assessment
    Stone, Jennifer C.
    Glass, Kathryn
    Clark, Justin
    Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel
    Munn, Zachary
    Tugwell, Peter
    Doi, Suhail A. R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 134 : 52 - 64
  • [2] A unified Bayesian framework for bias adjustment in multiple comparisons from clinical trials
    Du, Yu
    Li, Jianghao
    Raha, Sohini
    Qu, Yongming
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 43 (15) : 2928 - 2943
  • [3] Quality versus Risk-of-Bias assessment in clinical research
    Furuya-Kanamori, Luis
    Xu, Chang
    Hasan, Syed Shahzad
    Doi, Suhail A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 129 : 172 - 175
  • [4] A unified framework of life cycle assessment
    Yang, Yi
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2019, 24 (04): : 620 - 626
  • [5] A unified framework of life cycle assessment
    Yi Yang
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019, 24 : 620 - 626
  • [6] A unified framework for the assessment of recovery procedures
    Cholda, P
    Jajszczyk, A
    Wajda, K
    [J]. 2005 WORKSHOP ON HIGH PERFORMANCE SWITCHING AND ROUTING, 2005, : 269 - 273
  • [7] Bias in clinical research
    Tripepi, G.
    Jager, K. J.
    Dekker, F. W.
    Wanner, C.
    Zoccali, C.
    [J]. KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 73 (02) : 148 - 153
  • [8] Bias in Clinical Research
    Manterola, Carlos
    Otzen, Tamara
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY, 2015, 33 (03): : 1156 - 1164
  • [9] A step toward building a unified framework for managing AI bias
    Rana, Saadia Afzal
    Azizul, Zati Hakim
    Awan, Ali Afzal
    [J]. PEERJ COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2023, 9
  • [10] RESEARCH ASSESSMENT - BIAS OR VALIDITY
    BADDELEY, A
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGIST, 1995, 8 (07) : 319 - 320