Moving towards less biased research.

Q1 Medicine BMJ Open Science Pub Date : 2021-01-17 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116
Mark Yarborough
{"title":"Moving towards less biased research.","authors":"Mark Yarborough","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Reuse permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. INTRODUCTION Bias, perhaps best described as ‘any process at any stage of inference which tends to produce results or conclusions that differ systematically from the truth,’ can pollute the entire spectrum of research, including its design, analysis, interpretation and reporting. It can taint entire bodies of research as much as it can individual studies. 3 Given this extensive detrimental impact, effective efforts to combat bias are critically important to biomedical research’s goal of improving healthcare. Champions for such efforts can currently be found among individual investigators, journals, research sponsors and research regulators. The central focus of this essay is assessing the effectiveness of some of the efforts currently being championed and proposing new ones. Current efforts fall mainly into two domains, one meant to prevent bias and one meant to detect it. Much like a proverbial chain, efforts in either domain are hampered by their weakest components. Hence, it behoves us to constantly probe antibias tools so that we can identify weak components and seek ways to compensate for them. Further, given the high stakes— conclusions that align with rather than diverge from truth—it further behoves the biomedical research community to prioritise to the extent possible bias prevention over bias detection. The less likely any given study is to be tainted by bias, the fewer research publications reporting biased results there will be. The value of detected bias pales in comparison, for it extends only as far as those who are aware of that detection after the fact, meaning that biased conclusions at variance with the truth can mislead those unaware of the bias that taints them for as long as the affected publications endure. With these preliminary considerations about bias in mind, let us first examine some current antibias efforts and probe their weaknesses. Doing so will show why we need to develop additional strategies for preventing bias in the first place, and space is set aside at the end to examine two related candidate strategies for how we could attempt to do that. CURRENT BIAS COUNTERMEASURES Table 1 reflects some current countermeasures being employed to combat various kinds of biases. Though the table is far from comprehensive, (dozens of biases have been catalogued) it does include major biases of concern, representative countermeasures to combat them, whether those countermeasures prevent or detect bias, and their likely relative strength.","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Reuse permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. INTRODUCTION Bias, perhaps best described as ‘any process at any stage of inference which tends to produce results or conclusions that differ systematically from the truth,’ can pollute the entire spectrum of research, including its design, analysis, interpretation and reporting. It can taint entire bodies of research as much as it can individual studies. 3 Given this extensive detrimental impact, effective efforts to combat bias are critically important to biomedical research’s goal of improving healthcare. Champions for such efforts can currently be found among individual investigators, journals, research sponsors and research regulators. The central focus of this essay is assessing the effectiveness of some of the efforts currently being championed and proposing new ones. Current efforts fall mainly into two domains, one meant to prevent bias and one meant to detect it. Much like a proverbial chain, efforts in either domain are hampered by their weakest components. Hence, it behoves us to constantly probe antibias tools so that we can identify weak components and seek ways to compensate for them. Further, given the high stakes— conclusions that align with rather than diverge from truth—it further behoves the biomedical research community to prioritise to the extent possible bias prevention over bias detection. The less likely any given study is to be tainted by bias, the fewer research publications reporting biased results there will be. The value of detected bias pales in comparison, for it extends only as far as those who are aware of that detection after the fact, meaning that biased conclusions at variance with the truth can mislead those unaware of the bias that taints them for as long as the affected publications endure. With these preliminary considerations about bias in mind, let us first examine some current antibias efforts and probe their weaknesses. Doing so will show why we need to develop additional strategies for preventing bias in the first place, and space is set aside at the end to examine two related candidate strategies for how we could attempt to do that. CURRENT BIAS COUNTERMEASURES Table 1 reflects some current countermeasures being employed to combat various kinds of biases. Though the table is far from comprehensive, (dozens of biases have been catalogued) it does include major biases of concern, representative countermeasures to combat them, whether those countermeasures prevent or detect bias, and their likely relative strength.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转向较少偏见的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Science
BMJ Open Science Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction: Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of the validity of animal models of polydipsia with a basis in schizophrenia aetiology. Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of good surgical practice guidelines for experimental rodent surgery. Genome-wide DNA methylation in an animal model and human studies of schizophrenia: a protocol for a meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1