ArticleJournal of biomechanics2025
Evaluating recruitment methods for selection bias: A large, experimental study of hand biomechanics.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared Strides: Community-based, high-throughput biomechanics data collection in knee osteoarthritis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A hand biomechanics dataset of kinematics, kinetics, electromyography, and imaging in healthy adults.Scientific data · 2026Article
- A hand biomechanics dataset of kinematics, kinetics, electromyography, and imaging in healthy adults.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomechanics studies rely on non-random recruitment methods to obtain study participants. However, the use of common recruitment methods and small sample sizes may influence a given study's generalizability due to selection bias. To improve generalizability, ecological validity, and participant convenience, recent biomechanics studies have moved beyond lab conditions. However, it is unknown if simply leaving the lab space and increasing sample sizes reduces the risks associated with selection bias. Previous studies relied on chart and literature reviews to identify selection bias. Herein, we build upon this work by exploring the potential for and influence of selection bias in three common recruiting methods by performing an experimental, population-level study on hand biomechanics. Hand biomechanics was assessed in the community using a portable lab setup to measure hand function, grip strength, and pinch strength. A total of 642 apparently healthy participants were recruited across 18 locations, with 426 participants selected based on complete data responses and being between the ages of 18 to 35. Sex stratified analysis was performed to see how recruiting only biomechanists, undergraduate students, or university affiliates changed population estimates of hand strength. The presence of selection bias was observed in all three test cases with both male and female biomechanists, graduate students, and non-university affiliates having significant increases in pinch and grip strengths ranging from 6.2% to 19.4% above overall population values. This study quantitively shows how simply leaving the lab and increasing subject recruitment does not eliminate the potential for selection bias in studies of hand biomechanics.
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.