Analysis bias

Biases can be introduced when knowledge of the results of studies influences analysis and reporting decisions, for example, when studies stop earlier than planned, or with biased selection of the treatment outcomes measured.


JLL Essay
2.5 Bias introduced after looking at study results

Fair measurement of treatment outcome

 

FILTER CLEAR FILTERS

SORT date author


FILTER RECORDS BY


Mainland D (1952)
Intercurrent Events. In: Elementary Medical Statistics: the principles of quantitative medicine. London: WB Saunders Company, p 109. [Facimile copy printed and bound in India. Pranava Books. 2- LB100151138852 -301 -4 sa.]

View

Herdan G (1955)
Statistics of Therapeutic Trials. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

View

Sutherland I (1958)
Statistical aspects of clinical trials. In: Dodds C, ed. Report of a Symposium on Clinical Trials held at The Royal Society of Medicine, London, 25 April, p 53, pp 50-55.

View

Laurence DR, ed. (1959)
Quantitative Methods in Human Pharmacology and Therapeutics. London: Pergamon Press.

View

Lasagna L, Meier P (1959)
Experimental Design and Statistical Problems. In: Waife SO, Shapiro AP, eds. The Clinical Evaluation of New Drugs. New York: Hoeber. pp 37-60.

View

Knowelden J (1959)
Prophylactic trials. In: Witts LJ ed. Medical Surveys and Clinical Trials. London: Oxford University Press. pp 118-133.

View

Bywaters E (1960)
Rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment and illustrative answers. In: Hill AB ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp 75-83.

View

Knowelden J (1960)
The analysis and presentation of results. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 155-159.

View

Mainland D (1963)
Elementary medical statistics: 2nd edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.

View

Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ (1987)
Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-32.

View

Gøtzsche PC (1987)
Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 295:654-656.

View

Newcombe RG (1988)
Explanatory and pragmatic estimates of the treatment effect when deviations from allocated treatment occur. . Statistics in Medicine Volume 7, Issue 11 p. 1179-1186.

View

Gøtzsche PC (1989)
Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clinical Trials 10:31-56.

View

Hill AB, Hill ID (1991)
Differential exclusions. In: Bradford Hill’s Principles of Medical Statistics. 12th edition. London: Edward Arnold. pp 226-228.

View

Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG (1994)
The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 309:1677-1681.

View

Hollis S, Campbell F (1999)
What is meant by intention-to-treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670-674.

View

Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J (2000)
Intention-to-treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ 320:107-108.

View

Yusuf S (2000)
Challenges in the conduct and interpretation of phase II (pilot) randomized trials. . American Heart Journal 139:S136-42.

View

Davidson I, Hillier VF (2002)
Comparison of four methods of allocation for clinical trials with small sample sizes. Physiotherapy 88;12:722-729, ISSN 0031-9406.

View

Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, Bucher HC, Schunemann HJ, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Erwin PJ, Sood A, Sood R, Lo B, Thompson CA, Zhou Q, Mills E, Guyatt GH (2005)
Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 294:2203-2209.

View

Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G (2008)
Stopping a trial early in oncology: for patients or for industry? Annals of Oncology Feb 29; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn042.

View

Kramer MS, Martin RM, Sterne JA, Shapiro S, Mourad D, Platt RW (2009)
The double jeopardy of clustered measurement and cluster randomisation. BMJ 339:503-505.

View

Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, Heels-Ansdell D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH; STOPIT-2 Study Group (2010)
Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 303:1180-7.

View

Montedori A, Cherubini A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, Luchetta ML, Duca P, Cozzolino F, Abraha I (2011)
Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomised trials? A cross-sectional study. Trials 12:58.

View

White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ (2012)
Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical Trials 9:396-407.

View

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A (2014)
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014;(10):MR000035.

View

Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, Folletti I, Marchesi M, Germani A, Orso M, Eusebi P, Montedori A (2015)
Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2015;350:h2445.

View

Imberger G, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2016)
False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open 6(8):e011890.

View

Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW (2016)
Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials 17:473.

View

Ristl R, Urach S, Rosenkranz G, Posch M (2018)
Methods for the analysis of multiple endpoints in small populations: A review. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 29:1-29.

View

Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, Richards GC, Rombey T, Wayant C, Gill PJ (2020)
Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 113:433-443.

View

Bradley VC, Kuriwaki S, Isakov M, Sejdinovic D, Meng X, Flaxman S (2021)
Unrepresentative big surveys significantly overestimated US vaccine uptake. Nature 600, 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04198-4.

View

Show


Schlesselman JJ (2015).
Jerome Cornfield’s Bayesian approach to assessing interim results in clinical trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Zwarenstein M (2016).
‘Pragmatic’ and ‘Explanatory’ attitudes to randomized trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG† (2017).
Donald Mainland: anatomist, educator, thinker, medical statistician, trialist, rheumatologist. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Jefferson T (2019).
Sponsorship bias in clinical trials – growing menace or dawning realisation? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Tröhler U (2020)
Probabilistic thinking and the evaluation of therapies, 1700-1900. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Gøtzsche PC (2021).
Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Pound P (2022).
The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000 – 2022. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I, Matthews R, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Armitage P† (2023).
Analysis of clinical trial by Treatment Allocated or by Treatment Received? Applying ‘the intention-to-treat principle’. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Glasziou P, Matthews R, Boutron I, Chalmers I, Armitage P† (2023)
The differences and overlaps between ‘explanatory’ and ‘pragmatic’ controlled trials: a historical perspective. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Nothing found, please try resetting your search filters