Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32133725›Full record

ReviewNephrology (Carlton, Vic.)2020

Where to look for the most frequent biases?

Kitty J Jager, Giovanni Tripepi, Nicholas C Chesnaye, Friedo W Dekker, Carmine Zoccali, Vianda S Stel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Determinants of maternal and neonatal PFAS concentrations: a review.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Kitty J JagerERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0444-8569
Giovanni TripepiCNR-IFC, Center of Clinical Physiology, Clinical Epidemiology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Nicholas C ChesnayeERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Friedo W DekkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Carmine ZoccaliCNR-IFC, Center of Clinical Physiology, Clinical Epidemiology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Vianda S StelERA-EDTA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study quality depends on a number of factors, one of them being internal validity. Such validity can be affected by random and systematic error, the latter also known as bias. Both make it more difficult to assess a correct frequency or the true relationship between exposure and outcome. Where random error can be addressed by increasing the sample size, a systematic error in the design, the conduct or the reporting of a study is more problematic. In this article, we will focus on bias, discuss different types of selection bias (sampling bias, confounding by indication, incidence-prevalence bias, attrition bias, collider stratification bias and publication bias) and information bias (recall bias, interviewer bias, observer bias and lead-time bias), indicate the type of studies where they most frequently occur and provide suggestions for their prevention.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchObserver VariationResearch DesignSelection BiasHumansInterviews as TopicSelf Reportbiasepidemiologic methodsresearch designresearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID32133725
PMCPMC7318122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.