ArticleAccountability in research2013
The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training.
Article in Accountability in research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Review
- Where to Next for Māori Health Research Review Processes? Insights Into the Indigenous Context: An Integrative Systematic Literature Review.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Review
- How can academic researchers more effectively contribute to environmental toxicology and health efforts for regulatory decisions, policymakers, nonprofits, and communities?Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2026Review
- 'Playing to extinction': the commercial determinants of gambling-related harm, suicidality and suicide.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- "I never thought of it as payment": Qualitative evaluation of workshops with advanced practice registered nurses on pharmaceutical industry payment reporting.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2025Article
- Moral jeopardy, conflicts of interest and the integrity of public health research.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Stratified Evaluation of GPT's Question Answering in Surgery Reveals Artificial Intelligence (AI) Knowledge Gaps.Cureus · 2023Article
- A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
- Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2022Review
- Alcohol, cardiovascular disease and industry funding: A co-authorship network analysis of systematic reviews.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- The Science for Profit Model-How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice.PloS one · 2021Article
- Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.BMJ open · 2020Article
- How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Associations between industry involvement and study characteristics at the time of trial registration in biomedical research.PloS one · 2019Article
- The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.American journal of public health · 2018Article
- Challenges to generating evidence-informed policy and the role of systematic reviews and (perceived) conflicts of interest.Journal of communication in healthcare · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recognizing bias in health research is crucial for evidence-based decision making. We worked with eight community groups to develop materials for nine modular, individualized critical appraisal workshops we conducted with 102 consumers (four workshops), 43 healthcare providers (three workshops), and 33 journalists (two workshops) in California. We presented workshops using a "cycle of bias" framework, and developed a toolbox of presentations, problem-based small group sessions, and skill-building materials to improve participants' ability to evaluate research for financial and other conflicts of interest, bias, validity, and applicability. Participant feedback indicated that the adaptability of the toolbox and our focus on bias were critical elements in the success of our workshops.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.