Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32103298›Full record

ArticleHNO2020

[Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials].

C Schmucker, J J Meerpohl, A Blümle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C SchmuckerInstitut für Evidenz in der Medizin (für Cochrane Deutschland Stiftung), Medizinische Fakultät, vertreten durch das Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Deutschland. schmucker@ifem.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1188-3158
J J MeerpohlInstitut für Evidenz in der Medizin (für Cochrane Deutschland Stiftung), Medizinische Fakultät, vertreten durch das Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Deutschland.
A BlümleInstitut für Evidenz in der Medizin (für Cochrane Deutschland Stiftung), Medizinische Fakultät, vertreten durch das Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Results from clinical studies are often subject to the risk of bias (deviation from the truth, systematic error). Therefore, a critical appraisal of studies provides a useful strategy in evidence-based healthcare to safeguard against wrong decisions and resulting in overtreatment or undertreatment. This article explains the frequently encountered types of bias, differentiates between them and provides strategies for avoidance of systematic errors. In addition, the two established Cochrane tools with which the risk of bias can be assessed in randomized and non-randomized studies are presented. To highlight the most important components of these tools for bias assessment, examples of randomization, confounding, blinding, completeness of data and selective reporting are provided. Finally, it is shown that bias should not be confused with other study limitations, such as external validity and imprecision.

Indexed as

Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicBiasHumansClinical trialsCritical appraisalSystematic errorToolsValidity

Identifiers

PMID32103298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.