Identifying and avoiding design related biases in observational studies using the target trial framework.

IF 9.3
BMJ medicine Pub Date : 2026-02-20 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjmed-2024-001280
Harrison J Hansford, Nazrul Islam, Hopin Lee, Barbra A Dickerman, Aidan G Cashin
{"title":"Identifying and avoiding design related biases in observational studies using the target trial framework.","authors":"Harrison J Hansford, Nazrul Islam, Hopin Lee, Barbra A Dickerman, Aidan G Cashin","doi":"10.1136/bmjmed-2024-001280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Observational studies are necessary to provide evidence to inform decision making in the absence of a relevant randomised trial. Although commonly criticised for potential problems due to confounding bias, design related biases in observational studies are often overlooked yet highly prevalent. Design related biases occur because of decisions made by researchers during analyses of observational data. Common design related biases include bias related to selection and treatment misclassification, resulting from misalignment of eligibility ascertainment, treatment strategy assignment, and start of follow-up. Conceptualising the analysis of observational data to estimate the causal effects of interventions as an attempt to explicitly emulate a target trial can help avoid design related biases, so that investigators can instead focus on data related biases (eg, confounding, measurement error) not directly addressed by the framework. Target trial emulation may also help readers appraise an observational study when transparently reported. This article aims to help readers of observational studies identify and avoid design related biases to support the use of observational evidence to inform clinical and policy decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":72433,"journal":{"name":"BMJ medicine","volume":"5 1","pages":"e001280"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12927355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2024-001280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Observational studies are necessary to provide evidence to inform decision making in the absence of a relevant randomised trial. Although commonly criticised for potential problems due to confounding bias, design related biases in observational studies are often overlooked yet highly prevalent. Design related biases occur because of decisions made by researchers during analyses of observational data. Common design related biases include bias related to selection and treatment misclassification, resulting from misalignment of eligibility ascertainment, treatment strategy assignment, and start of follow-up. Conceptualising the analysis of observational data to estimate the causal effects of interventions as an attempt to explicitly emulate a target trial can help avoid design related biases, so that investigators can instead focus on data related biases (eg, confounding, measurement error) not directly addressed by the framework. Target trial emulation may also help readers appraise an observational study when transparently reported. This article aims to help readers of observational studies identify and avoid design related biases to support the use of observational evidence to inform clinical and policy decision making.

在使用目标试验框架的观察性研究中识别和避免与设计相关的偏差。
在缺乏相关随机试验的情况下,观察性研究是必要的,可以为决策提供证据。虽然由于混淆偏倚而引起的潜在问题经常受到批评,但观察性研究中与设计相关的偏倚经常被忽视,但却非常普遍。设计相关偏差的发生是由于研究人员在分析观测数据时所做的决定。常见的设计相关偏倚包括与选择和治疗错误分类相关的偏倚,这些偏倚是由资格确定、治疗策略分配和随访开始的不一致引起的。将观察数据的分析概念化,以估计干预措施的因果效应,作为一种明确模仿目标试验的尝试,可以帮助避免与设计相关的偏差,因此研究人员可以转而关注与数据相关的偏差(例如,混淆,测量误差),而不是由框架直接解决。目标试验模拟也可以帮助读者评价观察性研究时,透明的报告。本文旨在帮助观察性研究的读者识别和避免与设计相关的偏倚,以支持观察性证据的使用,为临床和政策决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书