Abstract
In developing a research protocol, the authors must take into account the possible errors that may occur throughout the study. In clinical research two types are recognized, random and systematic errors, the latter are called biases.
To date, dozens of biases have been described, for which reason this article aims to describe the main biases that can occur in clinical research studies and strategies to avoid them, or minimize their effects.
As there are several classifications, to provide a more practical overview in this review the biases are grouped into three: selection biases, information (or performance) biases, and confounding biases. In addition, to make it even more specific, we describe the biases taking into account the purpose of the research: prognosis, therapy, causality, and diagnostic test studies.
References
Miranda-Novales MG, Villasís-Keever MÁ. El protocolo de investigación. Parte I. Rev Alerg Mex. 2015;62(4):312-7. Disponible en: https://revistaalergia.mx/ojs/index.php/ram/article/view/129/258
Villasís-Keever MÁ, Miranda-Novales MG. El protocolo de investigación II: los diseños de estudio para investigación clínica. Rev Alerg Mex. 2016;63(1):80-90. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v63i1.163
Arias-Gómez J, Villasís-Keever MÁ, Miranda-Novales MG. El protocolo de investigación III: la población de estudio. Rev Alerg Mex. 2016;63(2):201-206. Disponible en: https://revistaalergia.mx/ojs/index.php/ram/article/view/181/309
Villasís-Keever MÁ, Miranda-Novales MG. El protocolo de investigación IV: las variables de estudio. Rev Alerg Mex. 2016;63(3):303-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v63i3.199
Flores-Ruiz E, Miranda-Novales MG, Villasís-Keever MÁ. El protocolo de investigación VI: cómo elegir la prueba estadística adecuada. Estadística inferencial. Rev Alerg Mex. 2017;64(3):364-370. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v64i3.304
Villasís-Keever MÁ, Márquez-González H, Zurita-Cruz JN, Miranda-Novales G, Escamilla-Núñez A. El protocolo de investigación VII. Validez y confiabilidad de las mediciones. Rev Alerg Mex. 2018; 65(4): 414-421.
Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):415-423. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v65i4.560
Luijendijk HJ, Page MJ, Burger H, Koolman X. Assessing risk of bias: a proposal for a unified framework for observational studies and randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):237. Disponible en: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-020-01115-7
Sessler D, Imrey P. Clinical research methodology 1: study designs and methodolgic source of error. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(4):1034-1042. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000815
Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(8):635-641. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.008466
Hernández-Ávila M, Garrido F, Salazar-Martínez E. Sesgos en estudios epidemiológicos. Salud Publica Mex. 2000;42(5):438-446. Disponible en: https://scielosp.org/pdf/spm/2000.v42n5/438-446/es
Chavalarias D, Ioannidis JP. Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1205-1215. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.011
Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280-286. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009
Zurita-Cruz JN, Márquez-González H, Miranda-Novales G, Villasís-Keever MÁ. Estudios experimentales: diseños de investigación para la evaluación de intervenciones en la clínica. Rev Alerg Mex. 2018;65(2):178-186. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v65i2.376
Jørgensen L, Paludan-Müller AS, Laursen DR, Savović J, Boutron I, Sterne JA, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:80. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0259-8
Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, Turner L, Altman DG, Moher D, Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):ED000058. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000058
Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):663-669. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.013
Rendón-Macías ME, Villasís-Keever MÁ. Fases para determinar la utilidad clínica de las pruebas diagnósticas. Rev Alerg Mex. 2020;67(3):279-285. DOI: 0000-0002-8566-0811
Rendón-Macías ME, Valenzuela M, Villasís-Keever MÁ. Sesgos en los estudios de pruebas de diagnóstico: implicación en la estimación de la sensibilidad y especificidad. Rev Alerg Mex. 2020;67(2):165-173. DOI: 10.29262/ram.v67i2.771
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Alergia México