ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2021
Bias Analysis Gone Bad.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Nondifferential misclassification of outcome under (near-) perfect specificity: a simulation study.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic Status, Smoking, and Lung Cancer: Mediation and Bias Analysis in the SYNERGY Study.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Higher-order evidence.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the online Pittsburgh sleep quality index in college students from low-income regions.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Exploring links between Chinese military recruits' psychological stress and coping style from the person-environment fit perspective: The chain mediating effect of self-efficacy and social support.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative bias analysis comprises the tools used to estimate the direction, magnitude, and uncertainty from systematic errors affecting epidemiologic research. Despite the availability of methods and tools, and guidance for good practices, few reports of epidemiologic research incorporate quantitative estimates of bias impacts. The lack of familiarity with bias analysis allows for the possibility of misuse, which is likely most often unintentional but could occasionally include intentional efforts to mislead. We identified 3 examples of suboptimal bias analysis, one for each common bias. For each, we describe the original research and its bias analysis, compare the bias analysis with good practices, and describe how the bias analysis and research findings might have been improved. We assert no motive to the suboptimal bias analysis by the original authors. Common shortcomings in the examples were lack of a clear bias model, computed example, and computing code; poor selection of the values assigned to the bias model's parameters; and little effort to understand the range of uncertainty associated with the bias. Until bias analysis becomes more common, community expectations for the presentation, explanation, and interpretation of bias analyses will remain unstable. Attention to good practices should improve quality, avoid errors, and discourage manipulation.
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.