A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research

Jennifer C Stone, Kathryn Glass, Justin Clark, Zachary Munn, Peter Tugwell, Suhail A R Doi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)106-120
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 10 May 2019

Fingerprint

Research

Cite this

Stone, J. C., Glass, K., Clark, J., Munn, Z., Tugwell, P., & Doi, S. A. R. (2019). A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 17(2), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165
Stone, Jennifer C ; Glass, Kathryn ; Clark, Justin ; Munn, Zachary ; Tugwell, Peter ; Doi, Suhail A R. / A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research. In: International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2019 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 106-120.
@article{8a5ff90f3d874e7599ae0cbc0154f9df,
title = "A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research",
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.",
author = "Stone, {Jennifer C} and Kathryn Glass and Justin Clark and Zachary Munn and Peter Tugwell and Doi, {Suhail A R}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "106--120",
journal = "International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare",
issn = "1744-1595",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research. / Stone, Jennifer C; Glass, Kathryn; Clark, Justin; Munn, Zachary; Tugwell, Peter; Doi, Suhail A R.

In: International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Vol. 17, No. 2, 10.05.2019, p. 106-120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research

AU - Stone, Jennifer C

AU - Glass, Kathryn

AU - Clark, Justin

AU - Munn, Zachary

AU - Tugwell, Peter

AU - Doi, Suhail A R

PY - 2019/5/10

Y1 - 2019/5/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165

DO - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000165

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 106

EP - 120

JO - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

JF - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

SN - 1744-1595

IS - 2

ER -