A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research.

Q3 Medicine
Jennifer C Stone, Kathryn Glass, Justin Clark, Zachary Munn, Peter Tugwell, Suhail A R Doi
{"title":"A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research.","authors":"Jennifer C Stone,&nbsp;Kathryn Glass,&nbsp;Justin Clark,&nbsp;Zachary Munn,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell,&nbsp;Suhail A R Doi","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

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.

临床研究偏倚评估的统一框架。
研究方法上的缺陷、局限和不充分的实践是众所周知的,并对任何研究的内部有效性构成威胁。然而,有一些方法可以保护研究行为,以减少研究产生扭曲结果的机会。现在存在许多工具来评估将这些保障措施纳入初级研究(也称为质量和/或偏倚风险评估)。这些工具通常包括各种各样的项目,然后根据研究中实现的项目进行检查。尽管在这一领域进行了大量研究,但没有对研究设计中的保障措施进行全面的通用分类,尽管已经试图澄清这一问题的各个方面。我们回顾了这一领域的发展,并使用了100项方法学研究的初步数据来说明我们提出的方法。最后,我们提出了一个新的框架来识别有偏倚风险的研究,本文中的信息将促进不同方法的统一,以促进临床研究中的偏倚评估。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信