ArticleCureus2024
A Test Method for Identifying Selection Bias Risk in Prospective Controlled Clinical Therapy Trials Using the I2 Point Estimate.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- I2 Statistic as the Selection Bias Test: Trial Effect Estimates in Relation to Identified Bias Levels.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA test method is proposed for identifying potential selection bias risk in single prospective controlled clinical therapy trials that can be applied by trial reviewers.
methodsThe method is described in detail and was tested on eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with reported negative Berger-Exner test results as negative and on eight prospective, controlled cohort studies as positive controls. All 16 studies were identified by systematic literature search.
resultsThe test method yielded negative results for all RCTs and positive results for six out of the eight cohort studies.
conclusionAll test results remained within the expected limits for both study types, suggesting a reasonably high accuracy for correctly identifying selection bias risk. However, the method does not provide the possibility to establish whether such bias risk has actually altered trial outcomes. Instead, a positive test result may provide an empirical basis for rating a trial as of high selection bias risk during trial appraisal.
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.