Abstract
This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials.
Keywords
MedicineBlindingObservational studyRandomizationRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioOddsClinical trialLogistic regressionMeta-analysisSelection biasInternal medicinePathology
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Empirical Evidence of Bias
<h3>Objective.</h3> —To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effec...
Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials
The results of randomised and non-randomised studies sometimes differed. In some instances non-randomised studies yielded larger estimates of effect and in other instances rando...
Corticosteroids as Adjunctive Therapy in the Treatment of Influenza: An Updated Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Objectives: Corticosteroids may be beneficial in sepsis, but uncertainty remains over their effects in severe influenza. This systematic review updates the current evidence rega...
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in th...
Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology
Investigators could have double blinded more often. When they did double blind, they reported poorly and rarely evaluated it. Paradoxically, trials that reported exclusions seem...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1995
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 408-412
- Citations
- 5580
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
5580
OpenAlex
Cite This
Klaus‐Peter Schulz
(1995).
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.
JAMA
, 273
(5)
, 408-412.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.273.5.408
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1001/jama.273.5.408