Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14551552

Research methodology.

Warren R Dunn·Stephen Lyman·Robert Marx·ISAKOS Scientific Committee
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Research aims to reach valid conclusions through scientific enquiry. Valid conclusions can only be reached if bias is minimized or eliminated. Bias can potentially take place in the design, implementation, or analysis of a study. Various study designs reduce bias, and this article reviews some of the more common study designs in orthopaedic sports medicine. We also discuss bias and confounding factors as they relate to these studies.

Explore related subjects

BiasCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHealth Services ResearchHumansOrthopedicsPopulation SurveillanceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesSports MedicineWounds and InjuriesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Warren R Dunn, Stephen Lyman, Robert Marx, ISAKOS Scientific Committee. 2003. Research methodology.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-8063(03)00705-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2004

Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies of diagnostic accuracy are subject to different sources of bias and variation than studies that evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention. Little is known about the effects of these sources of bias and variation. PURPOSE: To summarize the evidence on factors that can lead to bias or variation in the results of diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS, and the methodologic databases of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Methodologic experts in diagnostic tests were contacted. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that investigated the effects of bias and variation on measures of test performance were eligible for inclusion, which was assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: The best-documented effects of bias and variation were found for demographic features, disease prevalence and severity, partial verification bias, clinical review bias, and observer and instrument variation. For other sources, such as distorted selection of participants, absent or inappropriate reference standard, differential verification bias, and review bias, the amount of evidence was limited. Evidence was lacking for other features, including incorporation bias, treatment paradox, arbitrary choice of threshold value, and dropouts. CONCLUSIONS: Many issues in the design and conduct of diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to bias or variation; however, the empirical evidence about the size and effect of these issues is limited.

Bias↗