Bias in Clinical Intervention Research

Type: Review

Publication Date: 2006-01-27

Citations: 592

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj069

Abstract

Research on bias in clinical trials may help identify some of the reasons why investigators sometimes reach the wrong conclusions about intervention effects. Several quality components for the assessment of bias control have been suggested, but although they seem intrinsically valid, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate their effects on the extent and direction of bias. This narrative review summarizes the findings of methodological studies on the influence of bias in clinical trials. A number of methodological studies suggest that lack of adequate randomization in published trial reports may be associated with more positive estimates of intervention effects. The influence of double-blinding and follow-up is less clear. Several studies have found a significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions. However, the methodological studies also show that bias is difficult to detect and appraise. The extent of bias in individual trials is unpredictable. A-priori exclusion of trials with certain characteristics is not recommended. Appraising bias control in individual trials is necessary to avoid making incorrect conclusions about intervention effects.

Locations

  • American Journal of Epidemiology - View - PDF
  • PubMed - View

Similar Works

Action Title Year Authors
+ PDF Chat Biases in Randomized Trials 2016 Mohammad Alì Mansournia
Julian P. T. Higgins
Jonathan A C Sterne
Miguel A. Hernán
+ Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials 2007 Alejandro R. Jadad
Murray W. Enkin
+ Bias in the Analysis and Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 1996 Lesley Stewart
Mahesh Parmar
+ PDF Chat Study designs, levels of evidence, and scientific bias 2024 Adrian Deichsel
Lukas N. Münch
Brenda Laky
+ Selection Bias in Clinical Trials 2001 Kathy D. Miller
Zia Ur Rahman
George W. Sledge
+ Bias Control in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials 2022 Diane Uschner
William F. Rosenberger
+ Bias Control in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials 2019 Diane Uschner
William F. Rosenberger
+ Assessing risk of bias in a non‐randomized study 2019 Jonathan A C Sterne
Miguel A. Hernán
Alexandra McAleenan
Barnaby C Reeves
Julian P. T. Higgins
+ PDF Chat Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: addressing and reporting sources of bias in randomized controlled trials 2021 Daniel Kotz
Robert West
+ Bias in Clinical Research 2021 Susan Stuckless
Patrick S. Parfrey
+ PDF Chat Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies 2016 Matthew J. Page
Julian P. T. Higgins
Gemma Clayton
Jonathan A C Sterne
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Jelena Savović
+ PDF Chat On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics 2016 Alex Eble
Peter Boone
Diana Elbourne
+ Sources of Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials 2021
+ Blinding of interventions in clinical trials helps to prevent selection bias by making the allocation sequence difficult to decipher 2022 Rafael Leite Pacheco
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco
Rachel Riera
+ Selection bias in a randomized controlled clinical trial 1990 Dalene Stangl
Joel B. Greenhouse
+ On minimizing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in economics 2016 Alex Eble
Peter Boone
Diana Elbourne
+ Randomized Controlled Trials 2014 Paul Moayyedi
Richard H. Hunt
+ Assessment Bias in Clinical Trials 2014 Peter C Gøtzsche
+ Bias in double-blind trials. 1990 Gøtzsche Pc
+ How should a clinician interpret results of randomized controlled trials? Interpretation of randomized controlled trials 2010 Virginijus Šapoka

Works That Cite This (70)

Action Title Year Authors
+ Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta‐analysis 2008 John P. A. Ioannidis
+ PDF Chat Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement 2009 Julian Little
Julian P. T. Higgins
John P. A. Ioannidis
David Moher
France Gagnon
Erik von Elm
Muin J. Khoury
Barbara Cohen
George Davey Smith
Jeremy Grimshaw
+ PDF Chat Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement 2009 Julian Little
Julian P. T. Higgins
John P. A. Ioannidis
David Moher
France Gagnon
Erik von Elm
Muin J. Khoury
Barbara Cohen
George Davey Smith
Jeremy Grimshaw
+ PDF Chat Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review 2017 Seung Yeon Song
Boyeon Kim
Inhye Kim
Sungeun Kim
Minjeong Kwon
Hans‐Jürgen Möller
Eun Young Kim
+ Randomization, Allocation Concealment, and Blinding 2015 Hugh Senior
+ Trial characteristics and treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine: A meta-epidemiological study 2024 B. Wang
Yali Lin
Yinyan Gao
Jinlu Song
Lang Qin
Lingqi Li
Wenqi Liu
Claire C. W. Zhong
Mary Yue Jiang
Chen Mao
+ PDF Chat How Good Is “Evidence” from Clinical Studies of Drug Effects and Why Might Such Evidence Fail in the Prediction of the Clinical Utility of Drugs? 2014 Huseyin Naci
John P. A. Ioannidis
+ PDF Chat Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries 2012 Christian Gluud
Christine Kubiak
Kate Whitfield
Jane Byrne
Karl‐Heinz Huemer
Steffen Thirstrup
Christian Libersa
Béatrice Barraud
Xina Grählert
G. Dreier
+ PDF Chat Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomized trials within meta-analyses 2020 Rebecca M. Turner
Kirsty Rhodes
Hayley E. Jones
Julian P. T. Higgins
Jessica A. Haskins
Penny Whiting
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Deborah M Caldwell
Richard Morris
Barnaby C Reeves
+ Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials 2012 Jelena Savović
Hayley E. Jones
Douglas G. Altman
Ross Harris
Peter Jüni
Julie Pildal
Bodil Als‐Nielsen
Ethan M. Balk
Christian Gluud
Lise Lotte Gluud