Literature DB >> 20172393

Assessment of self-selection bias in a pediatric unilateral hearing loss study.

Judith E C Lieu1, Karuna Dewan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences between participants and nonparticipants in a study of children with unilateral hearing loss that might contribute to selection bias. STUDY
DESIGN: Case-control study.
SETTING: Academic pediatric otolaryngology practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Comparison of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics between the 81 participants and 78 nonparticipants with unilateral hearing loss in a case-control study.
RESULTS: Compared with nonparticipants, the study participants were younger but were diagnosed at an older age. Participants were more likely to have been diagnosed through a primary care screen and have normal ear anatomy, and less likely to have an attributed etiology for their unilateral hearing loss or tried assistive hearing devices. No other significant demographic, socioeconomic, or clinical differences were identified.
CONCLUSION: Self-selection bias may jeopardize both internal and external validity of study results and should be evaluated whenever possible. Methods to minimize self-selection bias should be considered and implemented during the planning stages of clinical studies. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20172393      PMCID: PMC2975441          DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.11.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  17 in total

Review 1.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

Authors:  D Moher; K F Schulz; D Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-04-18       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Survey error in measuring socio-economic risk factors of health status: a comparison of a survey and a census.

Authors:  Vincent Lorant; Stefaan Demarest; Pieter-Jan Miermans; Herman Van Oyen
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  Clinical research trials: factors that influence and hinder participation.

Authors:  Betty M Kennedy; Michael F Burnett
Journal:  J Cult Divers       Date:  2007

4.  Evidence for changing guidelines for routine screening for retinopathy of prematurity.

Authors:  S K Lee; C Normand; D McMillan; A Ohlsson; M Vincer; C Lyons
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2001-03

5.  What influences participation in clinical trials in palliative care in a cancer centre?

Authors:  J Ling; E Rees; J Hardy
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services research.

Authors:  S H Woolf; S F Rothemich; R E Johnson; D W Marsland
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec

7.  [Motivation and barriers to participation in clinical trials].

Authors:  Charly Gaul; Thomas Schmidt; Jürgen Helm; Heike Hoyer; Johannes Haerting
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2006-11-15

8.  Social role occupancy, gender, income adequacy, life stage and health: a longitudinal study of employed Canadian men and women.

Authors:  B L Janzen; Nazeem Muhajarine
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 9.  Principles of recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

Authors:  Leanne Aitken; Robyn Gallagher; Christine Madronio
Journal:  Int J Nurs Pract       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.066

10.  An exploration of demographic bias in a questionnaire survey of hearing-impaired children: implications for comparisons of children with and without cochlear implants.

Authors:  Heather M Fortnum; Paula C Stacey; A Quentin Summerfield
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 1.675

View more
  2 in total

1.  Mining online social network data for biomedical research: a comparison of clinicians' and patients' perceptions about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis treatments.

Authors:  Carlos Nakamura; Mark Bromberg; Shivani Bhargava; Paul Wicks; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  Chest pain in primary care: is the localization of pain diagnostically helpful in the critical evaluation of patients?--A cross sectional study.

Authors:  Stefan Bösner; Katharina Bönisch; Jörg Haasenritter; Patrice Schlegel; Eyke Hüllermeier; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 2.497

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.