Literature DB >> 28083633

[Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

W A Golder1.   

Abstract

Systematic errors and related phenomena represent an intrinsic challenge to the quality of clinical research. As a consequence even otherwise methodologically demanding studies may produce results that systematically differ from the true values. Systematic errors relating to investigative medicine are divided into six groups according to their affiliation with the consecutive chronological sections of the study. Bias can occur in preliminary literature research in the field, specifying the study design and selecting the study sample, measuring exposure and outcome, analyzing the data, interpreting the analyses and publishing the results. The most important systematic errors that concern diagnostic and interventional studies are created by access to the data of previous tests, calculated study design, preselection of the participants, comparison with non-contemporaneous controls, antedating the time of diagnosis and overdiagnosis of slowly progressive forms of diseases examined. Checking the measured values often leads to a mosaic of several biases with one being more or less dominant. Even by exercising due care in the preparation and performance of the study, the majority of distortions cannot be eliminated but only diminished. It is essential to consider each detected bias as a potential full or partial argument in support of an observed correlation. The control of systematic errors and related phenomena is both a significant element of the discussion of the study report and a key element for assessment of its scientific value.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Blinding; Clinical study; Randomization; Sources of error

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28083633     DOI: 10.1007/s00393-016-0253-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Rheumatol        ISSN: 0340-1855            Impact factor:   1.372


  65 in total

Review 1.  Assessing reader performance in radiology, an imperfect science: lessons from breast screening.

Authors:  B P Soh; W Lee; P L Kench; W M Reed; M F McEntee; A Poulos; P C Brennan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-04-07       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Gwendolyn B Emerson; Winston J Warme; Fredric M Wolf; James D Heckman; Richard A Brand; Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-11-22

Review 3.  Lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Tarek Mekhail
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Influence of imperfect reference standard bias on the diagnostic performance of MRI in the detection of lymphomatous bone marrow involvement.

Authors:  H J A Adams; T C Kwee; R A J Nievelstein
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Correlation of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection of the quadratus femoris with MRI findings of ischiofemoral impingement.

Authors:  Matthew W Backer; Kenneth S Lee; Donna G Blankenbaker; Richard Kijowski; James S Keene
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Omission bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care medicine.

Authors:  Scott K Aberegg; Edward F Haponik; Peter B Terry
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.410

8.  Adjusting for perception and unmasking effects in longitudinal clinical trials.

Authors:  Alan Hubbard; Farid Jamshidian; Nicholas Jewell
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2012-12-31       Impact factor: 1.829

9.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Authors:  Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-12

10.  Overdiagnosis in screening mammography in Denmark: population based cohort study.

Authors:  Sisse Helle Njor; Anne Helene Olsen; Mogens Blichert-Toft; Walter Schwartz; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-02-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.