"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Reviews and Commentary

    Bias in Research Studies

    Published Online:Mar 1 2006https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383041109

    Abstract

    Bias is a form of systematic error that can affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process. A biased study loses validity in relation to the degree of the bias. While some study designs are more prone to bias, its presence is universal. It is difficult or even impossible to completely eliminate bias. In the process of attempting to do so, new bias may be introduced or a study may be rendered less generalizable. Therefore, the goals are to minimize bias and for both investigators and readers to comprehend its residual effects, limiting misinterpretation and misuse of data. Numerous forms of bias have been described, and the terminology can be confusing, overlapping, and specific to a medical specialty. Much of the terminology is drawn from the epidemiology literature and may not be common parlance for radiologists. In this review, various types of bias are discussed, with emphasis on the radiology literature, and common study designs in which bias occurs are presented.

    References

    • 1 Crewson PE, Applegate KE. Data collection in radiology research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177(4) :755–761. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 2003;226:24–28. Link, Google Scholar
    • 3 Hanley JA. The place of statistical methods in radiology (and in the bigger picture). Invest Radiol 1989;24:10–16. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Rothman KJ. Biases in study design. In: Epidemiology: an introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002; 94–112. Google Scholar
    • 5 Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Understanding lack of validity: bias. In: Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen, 2000; 125–176. Google Scholar
    • 6 Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Analysis of epidemiologic studies: evaluating the role of bias. In: Mayrent SL, ed. Epidemiology in medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, 1987; 272–286. Google Scholar
    • 7 Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Types of epidemiologic studies. In: Mayrent SL, ed. Epidemiology in medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, 1987; 101–204. Google Scholar
    • 8 Huang W, LaBerge JM, Lu Y, Glidden DV. Research publications in vascular and interventional radiology: research topics, study designs, and statistical methods. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:247–255. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet 2002;359:145–149. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10 Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Design strategies in epidemiologic research. In: Mayrent SL, ed. Epidemiology in medicine. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, 1987; 16–29. Google Scholar
    • 11 Fryback DG. A conceptual model for output measures in cost-effectiveness evaluation of diagnostic imaging. J Neuroradiol 1983;10:94–96. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991;11:88–94. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 Thornbury JR. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:1–8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14 Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 3rd ed. McLean, Va: International Medical, 2002. Google Scholar
    • 15 Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887–1892. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Goldin J, Sayre JW. A guide to clinical epidemiology for radiologists. I. Study design and research methods. Clin Radiol 1996;51:313–316. Google Scholar
    • 17 Blackmore CC, Black WC, Jarvik JG, Langlotz CP. A critical synopsis of the diagnostic and screening radiology outcomes literature. Acad Radiol 1999;6(suppl 1):S8–S18. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18 Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979;32:51–63. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19 Kazerooni EA. Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:993–999. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 Eng J, Siegelman SS. Improving radiology research methods: what is being asked and who is being studied? Radiology 1997;205(3):651–655. Link, Google Scholar
    • 21 Peterman SB. Design of clinical radiologic research. Invest Radiol 1993;28(suppl 2):S17–S23. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061–1066. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23 van der Schouw YT, Verbeek AL, Ruijs SH. Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Invest Radiol 1995;30:334–340. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24 Sunshine JH, Applegate KE. Technology assessment for radiologists. Radiology 2004;230(2):309–314. Link, Google Scholar
    • 25 Brealey S, Scally AJ. Bias in plain film reading performance studies. Br J Radiol 2001;74:307–316. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 26 Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 1988;167:565–569. Link, Google Scholar
    • 27 Obuchowski NA. Special topics III: bias. Radiology 2003;229(3):617–621. Link, Google Scholar
    • 28 Blackmore CC. The challenge of clinical radiology research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:327–331. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 29 Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189–202. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 30 Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299(17):926–930. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 31 Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645–651. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 32 Valenstein PN. Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;93:252–258. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 33 Gönen M, Panageas KS, Larson SM. Statistical issues in analysis of diagnostic imaging experiments with multiple observations per patient. Radiology 2001;221(3):763–767. Link, Google Scholar
    • 34 Donner A, Banting D. Analysis of site specific data in dental studies. J Dent Res 1988;67:1392–1395. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 35 Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996;276:1752–1755. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 36 Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003;228(1):10–14. Link, Google Scholar
    • 37 Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Identifying noncausal associations: confounding. In: Epidemiology: beyond the basics. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen, 2000; 177–210. Google Scholar
    • 38 Beam CA. Fundamental of clinical research for radiologists: statistically engineering the study for success. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:47–52. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: 2006