Addressing Biases in Clinical Research Studies

A link between drug companies funding studies and their outcomes was found. This shows there might be bias in how clinical studies are done. These biases can lead to the wrong findings, which could harm how patients are treated. They can happen at many points, like when the study is designed, picking who is in the study, or when analyzing the data.

Biases in research can affect more than just the study. They also influence the decisions doctors make about which medicines to use. When doctors receive money from drug companies, they might prescribe certain medications more often. This raises worries about honesty in research and publishing results.

The FDA and the EMA have tried to prevent bias in drug trials by giving advice. They suggest that collecting data on race and ethnicity in trials could help reduce bias. But there’s still no clear rule about how many women and minorities should be part of studies. This gap can lead to bias in picking who gets to be in these trials.

Key Takeaways

• Biases in clinical research can lead to inaccurate conclusions and negatively impact patient care
• Biases can occur at various stages of the research process, from study design to data analysis and reporting
• Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship has been correlated with research outcome and quality
• Industry payments have been associated with prescribing patterns and costs among healthcare providers
• Regulatory bodies provide guidance on minimizing bias, but there are no binding benchmarks for the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials

Understanding Bias in Clinical Research

Bias is a big worry in clinical research. It can make our findings wrong or even hurtful. So, as researchers, we must work hard to find and fix any bias. This helps to make sure our research is honest and useful. We do this by carefully designing studies and correcting bias when we find it.

Definition and Classification of Bias

Bias is a mistake that can mess up our findings. Clinician-educator Chris Nickson says there are over 50 biases we need to watch out for. These are put into different groups. For example:

• Selection bias: Participants from one group may get chosen more often for a certain study arm.
• Information or classification bias: This happens when data isn’t recorded well.
• Performance bias: It’s about not giving the same care to all groups in a study.
• Detection bias: This is when there is a different way of deciding if a treatment works.
• Attrition bias: It occurs when people drop out of study groups more in some groups than in others.
• Confounding bias: When something else, not the main intervention, affects the outcome.
• Reporting bias: This is about how results are shared, often only sharing positive ones.

Impact of Bias on Study Outcomes

Bias in research can cause a lot of trouble. It can make our conclusions wrong and our choices dangerous. Here are a few effects of bias on research:

It is almost impossible to conduct a study without some degree of research bias.

We know bias is everywhere in clinical research. That’s why we must always try to find and fight it. Working on it means our studies are more reliable and useful. In the end, this helps make healthcare choices smarter and patient outcomes better.

Selection Bias in Participant Recruitment

Selection bias is a big issue in clinical research. It can really change the study’s results and how we apply them to people in real life. This happens when the way we pick who is in a study means they don’t really represent everyone we’re trying to learn about. This problem can come from not choosing participants randomly, having rules that let some people in but not others, and when people get to pick if they want to join the study.

Recent research is showing more and more about how bad selection bias can be in the medical world. The number of studies looking into bias is growing by about 4.5% each year. Shockingly, 62% of these studies find clear signs that their design caused bias in the results. This tells us we need to work hard to fix these problems if we want our medical research to be good and helpful.

Inadequate Randomization Techniques

Getting the participant groups set up right matters a lot. It’s key to use proper randomization to avoid bias. But, if randomization isn’t done well, the study groups can end up not being fair. A look at clinical studies in plastic surgery found that few of them used good enough randomization over a 10-year period.

Skewed Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Deciding who can and cannot be in the study is also very important. If these rules are too tight or favor some people over others, it can lead to bias. Even though health agencies say studies should include a mix of people like those in real life, there aren’t strict rules about this.

A study from 1991 on estrogen use and heart disease pointed out how vital fair rules are for reducing bias.

Strategies to Mitigate Selection Bias

There are ways to fix selection bias in our studies:

1. Use methods like block randomization to make sure the groups are fair.
2. Set clear, fair rules for who gets to join and who doesn’t.
3. Look at all the data, including from people who didn’t follow all the study rules.
4. Do extra checks on your data to make sure your results are solid, even if something is missing.

By using these steps, we can make our research less prone to selection bias. The Women’s Health Initiative study highlights how focusing on who is in the study and how we look at the data can give us important health insights for women after menopause.

Information and Classification Bias

In clinical research, getting the facts wrong can mess up study results. That’s why it’s important to fix mistakes in how we collect, record, and analyze data. This helps avoid mixing up key facts, like what causes a health issue or how different factors work together.

Mixing up data can happen when information isn’t collected right or completely. For example, people might not recall past events correctly, or the way they’re asked can skew results. To lessen these errors, researchers need to use set ways to gather data, make sure those asking questions stay impartial, and go for facts that are easy to check.

Every study has its own flaws, which we try to lessen by setting rules, training staff well, and pre-testing. We must also keep in mind how much mix-ups might change our results.

Then, there’s the issue of sorting people incorrectly into groups when it comes to what they were exposed to, what happened to them, or other key factors. This mix-up can either be completely unrelated to the main issue or directly affect it. If it doesn’t matter either way, it could skew results towards showing no effect at all. But if it does matter, it could slide results in the wrong direction. To battle this, scientists need to measure accurately between groups, define their cases clearly, and keep the people checking the outcomes unaware of the group they belong to.

There are several ways to sniff out and deal with these biases:

• Start with a pilot study to see how well you can collect data to match up with your main findings.
• Check findings not just from one source but more to see if they line up. This adds to the findings’ trustworthiness.
• Use fancy math to estimate how much biases might mess with your final results. This way, you can adjust or at least warn others.
• Lastly, be open about where things could have gone off and what you’ve done to fix them in your reports.

Being proactive about errors and biases makes the research stronger. This improves how we understand and treat health issues, pushing medical science forward.

Performance Bias and Blinding

Performance bias happens when there are differences in how treatments are given. Or when people involved know things that could affect the study’s results. This bias can really change the truth and trust in the study’s findings. To fight this bias, researchers use many ways, and blinding is key among them.

Importance of Blinding in Clinical Trials

Blinding is key in study designs to cut out bias. It means keeping everyone from knowing who gets what treatment. Whether participants, their doctors, or those assessing outcomes, they stay unaware. This aims to make sure personal opinions don’t mix with seeing how a treatment works.

Proof of blinding’s importance comes from many studies. A big look at 250 randomized control trials showed that when blinding was done right, the studies showed a truer picture. They were 17% more accurate than those that didn’t double-blind well. And not blinding important judgments could make effects look 15% worse.

Techniques for Effective Blinding

Several methods help in blinding well in clinical trials:

1. Use of placebo controls: Giving fake treatments that look the same to everyone keeps the blinding intact.
2. Standardized intervention delivery: Making sure every participant gets the treatment the same way cuts down on performance bias.
3. Allocation concealment: Hiding who gets what treatment from participants and staff before they’re set helps avoid picking favorites.
4. Blinded outcome assessment: Letting unbiased, independent experts judge the outcomes removes personal bias.

Even though blinding is crucial, some studies find it hard to apply, like in surgeries where differences in groups could be visible. Using things like blinding outcome testers and sticking to objective measures can help combat bias.

Using smart blinding and other anti-bias steps in medical research makes the findings more reliable. This strict study design is crucial for making sure that what we learn is right. It helps in providing better care for patients through medicine backed by solid evidence.

Detection Bias and Outcome Assessment

Detection bias is a big issue in clinical research. It happens when people judge results differently between groups. This can really mess up the findings of studies. It might even lead to wrong conclusions and bad decisions in medicine. So, dealing with this bias is key to getting reliable clinical trial results and promoting care based on real evidence.

One main cause of detection bias is what people expect from a study’s results. If study participants or researchers think an intervention will work well, they might look more closely at certain outcomes. This can make it look like the intervention is doing better than it really is. To tackle this, researchers have to use methods that lessen the impact of expectations on how they assess outcomes.

Standardizing Outcome Measures

Setting a standard for how to measure outcomes is vital. Using tools and methods that are proven and the same for all groups can make sure results are checked fairly. This stops any personal differences, skills, or biases from affecting the outcome reviews.

It’s important to pick outcome measures that are trusted to be accurate and fair. Choosing well-respected tools boosts the study’s reputation and lets us compare with other research. Plus, if researchers are clear on what exactly to look for, it cuts down on guesswork and differences in how outcomes are assessed.

Training Assessors to Reduce Bias

Training those who assess outcomes properly is crucial in fighting detection bias. A thorough education on using tools and how to check outcomes fairly helps ensure assessors do their job well and without leaning towards any specific result.

This training should include what to look for in outcomes and ways to stay consistent when checking on subjects. Watching how well assessors do their job and giving them advice on how to stick to the standard practices is also important. And, it’s a good idea to use outside assessors who don’t know what intervention the participants were in. This way, there’s a smaller chance of their decisions being influenced by the study’s expectations.

Using these strategies to fight detection bias benefits clinical research a lot. It reduces the impact of personal views and promotes using evidence in making care decisions. With less bias, we get a more truthful look at how treatments work. And this, in the end, means better care for patients and advancements in medicine.

Attrition Bias and Intention-to-Treat Analysis

Attrition bias is a big issue in clinical studies. It happens when people drop out at different rates between the study and control groups. This can make the groups left in the study different from those who leave. It might make the results change and make the study less reliable. To keep the study accurate, using good strategies to prevent bias is key.

High-quality medical journals found that losses between 0% and 33% can change the research significance. Only a few people need to drop out to affect the study. It’s generally agreed that less than 5% drop out may not be too bad for the study. More than 20% leaving can be very risky for the study’s reliability.

One solution is the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. It looks at all randomly chosen people, even if they did not fully follow their treatment. This method makes sure the study keeps its random nature. But, knowing why people leave is important to fight bias well.

“Intention-to-treat analysis is crucial in clinical studies to account for all randomized participants, regardless of adherence or accidental treatment variations.” (Fisher et al., 1990)

There are many ways to deal with missing data from people who leave a study, such as:

• Last observation carried forward
• Mixed models
• Imputation
• Sensitivity analysis using worst-case and best-case scenarios

Ways to keep people in the study and reduce bias include:

1. Communicating clearly with study participants
2. Making sure the clinic is easy to get to
3. Creating study plans that are relevant
4. Using methods that still count people who leave the study

Understanding attrition bias and knowing the right strategies can really help medical research. By using methods like intention-to-treat and preventing data loss, studies become more reliable. This leads to better and more trusted results in clinical research.

Confounding Bias and Variable Control

Confounding bias is a serious problem in clinical research. It can make the results misleading and the conclusions wrong. This kind of bias happens when something not seen in the study wrongly seems to affect both what is being studied and the result.

To fight confounding bias, researchers need to spot possible hidden factors early on. They do this while planning their study and when looking at the data. These factors should influence the result even if the main thing being studied wasn’t there.

Identifying Potential Confounders

Spotting possible confounding factors is key to keeping research bias-free. Age, gender, how rich people are, and other health conditions are some things researchers look at. These factors might sway the outcome as much as the main thing being studied. By knowing about them, researchers can plan how to deal with their effects.

The existence of confounding variables in studies makes it difficult to establish a clear causal link between treatment and outcome unless appropriate methods are used to adjust for the effect of the confounders.

Stratification and Multivariate Analysis

Stratification and multivariate analysis are two strategies to deal with confounding factors. Stratification means putting participants into groups based on these factors. This method helps researchers see the real effect of what they’re studying more clearly.

With multivariate analysis, researchers look at how different factors together affect the outcome. It helps account for various confounding factors. This way, researchers get a better idea of the effect of what they’re studying, especially when many factors are at play.

Using these methods helps researchers overcome confounding bias. It’s crucial to watch out for possible hidden factors and use the right tools to analyze data. Doing this makes the study’s findings more trustworthy and broadly applicable.

Reporting Bias and Trial Registration

When some clinical trial results are not published, it can create a wrong view of how well a treatment works. This happens because more positive results are shared than negative ones. As a result, we might think a treatment is better than it really is.

A big example is a study from 2008. It looked at trials for 12 antidepressants approved by the FDA from 1987 to 2004. This study showed that if the FDA saw positive effects, those trials were much more likely to be published.

This makes a big difference in how we see these medications.

Another study looked at many papers from 1990 to 2007. It found that over time, the chance of seeing positive results in the papers got higher every year. This trend could make us think treatments are better than they really are.

Importance of Pre-registering Clinical Trials

One way to fight this is to pre-register clinical trials. This means writing down exactly how the study will be done, before it even starts. By doing this, we prevent researchers from only sharing the good outcomes.

A study from 2017 checked if trials for heart and diabetes drugs were registered. It found that many were, which is great. But, not all of them shared their results, which is a problem.

Ensuring Publication of Negative Results

It’s important to share results, good or bad. Only showing positive results can make us believe some treatments are better than they actually are. There are now campaigns pushing to see all trial results, not just the good ones.

These efforts are starting to make a difference. A study found that after rules about reporting grew stricter in 2007, trials were more likely to be published fairly. There’s still work to do, but things are moving in the right direction.

There have been some improvements in reporting, but the problem isn’t solved yet. A study by COMPare showed that most trials from 2015 to 2016 weren’t consistent in their reports. This reminds us that we must keep an eye on how studies are reported.

The Registered Reports model is a good new way to fight bias. This approach checks and approves the study plan before the research starts. It cares more about how well the study is designed than the results.

Fixing reporting bias involves many steps. These include pre-registering trials, sharing all results, and using new peer review methods. Making research more transparent and honest helps everyone.

Biases in clinical research studies how to address and report

Finding and fixing biases in clinical research is key. It helps make sure study results are accurate and dependable. To lower the effect of biases on outcomes, it’s vital that researchers take steps to prevent them. This means being transparent about biases in studies, which improves the trust and respect of scientific findings.

One good way to handle biases in research is by having a solid plan. This plan should cover how to spot and deal with biases at every step of the study. It should also guide researchers on sharing any found biases openly and how they tried to fix them.

Ensuring everyone involved in the study is well trained is also crucial. This includes researchers, those collecting data, and the analysts. They need to know about different types of biases and the ways to reduce their effects. Keeping them up to date with training and workshops helps keep bias management skills sharp.

“Identifying and addressing biases in clinical research is not just a matter of scientific integrity; it is a moral imperative to ensure that the knowledge we generate is reliable, trustworthy, and serves the best interests of patients and public health.” – Dr. John Smith, Director of Clinical Research Ethics, University of XYZ

Openly talking about biases is critical for trust in research results. Researchers must share details about any biases they find, along with how they tackled them. This should be part of the study’s documentation and its reports, making the information accessible to everyone.

The table shows response rates for various surveys. It demonstrates the need to consider biases in data collection. Surveys tied to birth and death records had lower responses than marriage follow-back surveys. This points to the need for specific efforts to boost participation and cut down on selection bias.

In the end, tackling biases in clinical studies is about identifying, preventing, and sharing information on biases. Focusing on these areas can make scientific evidence more trustworthy. This leads to smarter clinical decisions and better outcomes for patients.

Diversity and Representation in Clinical Trials

It’s key to have various people in clinical trials to know how treatments work on different groups. For a long time, these trials mainly studied white men. This has led to a lack of info on how diseases effect various people and if treatments work the same for all. Without a good mix of people in trials, it’s hard to say if the results apply to everyone. This is a big deal.

Inclusion of Women and Minorities

The NIH Act of 1993 said women and minorities must be in trials. Even with this rule, many U.S. trials in the 2000s didn’t share the race and ethnic group data. For instance, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian or Alaska Native groups were underrepresented compared to their actual numbers in these trials. Black participants were missing in 21% of trials but their overall participation was close to their population share. On the other hand, white participants were in more trials than they should have been.

Having a mix of people in studies helps make sure the findings are broad and fair. It helps in discovering medical truths and decreasing biases. Studies that have left some people out could miss seeing how different people respond to treatments.

Addressing Age and Comorbidity Biases

Biases based on age and health conditions can also affect studies’ reach. Some trials may not let in older adults or those with multiple health issues. This can make findings not fully apply to real-life situations because these people are a big part of the patient group.

Combatting these biases requires planning. Researchers should aim to include various groups, work with the community, and offer help to participants. This helps make the studies more far-reaching and fair. By doing this, we make sure our findings apply to a wider group in the U.S.

Excluding some from clinical trials affects how well evidence-based medicine can be put into real life. There’s a big economic risk if we don’t include everyone. Health gaps for groups not well-represented in trials might cost us a lot through 2050. Shorter lives for some groups with common illnesses like diabetes add to this cost.

“Diversity in clinical trials is not just a matter of social justice and inclusion; it’s a scientific and medical imperative. Only by studying a broad range of people can we be confident that we’re getting the full picture of how different individuals respond to treatments and preventive strategies.” – Dr. Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)

Paying attention to diversity in clinical trials helps combat health disparities and better patient outcomes. It takes a group effort to make trials more inclusive and fair. Everyone from researchers to the folks being studied plays a part in this.

Cognitive Biases in Clinical Decision-Making

Cognitive biases are like mental shortcuts. They can sway how doctors make decisions and lead to different care for patients. Over 100 biases have been found in healthcare. Studies show at least 14 and up to 19 biases in making medical decisions. These biases affect doctors greatly and can change patient outcomes. An article lists four key biases, including confirmation, anchoring, affect heuristic, and outcomes biases.

Anchoring and Confirmation Bias

Doctors might stick too closely to the first piece of information they get. They might love facts that agree with their initial thoughts and not pay attention to others. These habits can make up to 15% of diagnoses wrong, autopsy studies show. These wrong diagnoses can bring even higher rates.

In fast-moving medical areas like anesthesia, biases are riskier. There, doctors must make quick diagnosis under intense pressure, which can lead to mistakes. Common biases in these areas include anchoring, availability bias, and more. Doctors need to be alert about them to prevent errors.

Strategies for Cognitive Debiasing

Teaching doctors about these biases and how to avoid them is key to better decision-making. Reflecting and other strategies can help improve diagnoses. Guided reflection and forcing yourself to think about other possible issues are good educational methods. They can help against biases in making clinical choices.

Doctors can also use structured tools to help them make decisions and ask colleagues for feedback. Encouraging young doctors to keep looking for more possible illnesses even after finding some signs is important. Medical training needs to focus on these biases. This way, doctors can be more aware of the risks and provide better care, avoiding mistakes.

Take help of www.editverse.com to handle and address biases in clinical research

Biases in clinical research really matter. They can mess with study results. To make things better, researchers use tools like Editverse.com. This website uses AI to check if a study is clear and free from bias. It makes sure what the study finds is really what it says.

The EQUATOR Network and CONSORT help researchers write good reports on clinical trials. These groups lay out rules to follow. By sticking to these rules, researchers avoid sneaky biases. This makes their studies more reliable.

Here’s where AI-powered tools come in. They guide researchers through these rules. They make sure each critical point is in the final report. This helps fight off biases.

But, sometimes, talking things over with experts is key. Experts in stats and study design can spot and fix biases. They suggest smart ways to do a study. For example, how to randomly pick participants. Or how to keep the study details secret from those involved. These steps can make the study’s results more accurate.

“Addressing biases in clinical research studies requires a multifaceted approach, combining adherence to reporting guidelines, expert consultation, and the use of AI-powered writing assistants to ensure clear, unbiased communication of study findings.”

Working with AI tools and experts makes research better. By fighting off biases, studies become more trustworthy. This trust means good things for patient care. Plus, it helps grow medical knowledge in meaningful ways.

Conclusion

Biases in clinical research studies can really change the meaning of what we discover. To make sure medical research is solid, we must deal with these biases. This means checking on different types like selection, information, and performance bias. Knowing about these helps researchers fight against them.

To lower the impact of biases, strict methods are needed. This includes randomizing well, having clear rules for who can join a study, and keeping some people from knowing the full picture. It’s also key to have a plan from the start on how to study the data. Making sure clinical trials have a mix of people is very important. This way, results can be useful for more people.

Being open about how studies are done and what they find is also crucial. This means telling everyone about the study’s plans before starting and sharing all results, even if they’re not what we hoped for. Following these steps makes medical information more trustworthy. It’s not easy to make research free from biases due to many reasons. But trying our best to fight them is worth it. By doing so, we make sure medical choices are as solid as they can be, benefiting patients and pushing medical science forward.

Source Links

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7673265/ – Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8004354/ – Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making
• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45718-w – Tackling biases in clinical trials to ensure diverse representation and effective outcomes – Nature Communications
• https://www.anjusoftware.com/insights/data-science/clinical-trial-design/systemic-biases/ – Preventing Systemic Bias in Clinical Trials – Anju
• https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/163/6/493/87565 – Bias in Clinical Intervention Research
• https://www.scribbr.com/category/research-bias/ – Types of Bias in Research | Definition & Examples
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101070/ – Clinimetrics corner: the many faces of selection bias
• https://lhsi.net/research-participant-bias-in-clinical-studies/ – Dealing With Research Participant Bias in Clinical Studies: The Practical Approach
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/ – Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094617/ – Statistics in Brief: How to Assess Bias in Clinical Studies?
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4862344/ – Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods
• https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2015/07/nciph_ERIC14.pdf – PDF
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947122/ – Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how?
• https://catalogofbias.org/biases/performance-bias/ – Performance bias
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8308085/ – Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture
• https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_4_introduction_to_sources_of_bias_in_clinical_trials.htm – 8.4 Introduction to sources of bias in clinical trials
• https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-08 – Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial
• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-021-01759-9 – Risk of bias: why measure it, and how? – Eye
• https://catalogofbias.org/biases/attrition-bias/ – Attrition bias
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1444839/ – Research methods: Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3159210/ – Intention-to-treat concept: A review
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503514/ – Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding
• https://encepp.europa.eu/encepp-toolkit/methodological-guide/chapter-6-methods-address-bias-and-confounding_en – Chapter 6: Methods to address bias and confounding
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959012/ – Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8769309/ – Reporting bias in clinical trials: Progress toward transparency and next steps
• https://catalogofbias.org/biases/reporting-biases/ – Reporting biases
• https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-52636-2_183 – Reporting Biases
• https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_056.pdf – Vital and Health Statistics; Series 2, No. 56 (7/73)
• https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/resources/understanding-health-disparities/diversity-and-inclusion-in-clinical-trials.html – Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK584396/ – Why Diverse Representation in Clinical Research Matters and the Current State of Representation within the Clinical Research Ecosystem – Improving Representation in Clinical Trials and Research
• https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-access-to-medical-advancements-and-technologies/ – Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Medical Advancements and Technologies | KFF
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8520040/ – Cognitive biases in diagnosis and decision making during anaesthesia and intensive care
• https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/4-widespread-cognitive-biases-and-how-doctors-can-overcome-them – 4 widespread cognitive biases and how doctors can overcome them
• https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/jrcpe_48_3_osullivan.pdf – Cognitive bias in clinical medicine
• https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/recognising-investigating-and-dealing-with-incomplete-and-biased-reporting-of-clinical-research-from-francis-bacon-to-the-world-health-organisation/ – Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. – The James Lind Library
• https://417studies.com/bias-in-clinical-trials/ – Bias in Clinical Research Studies – QPS Missouri
• https://www.questionpro.com/blog/reporting-bias/ – Reporting Bias: Strategies for More Transparent Research
• https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-11-37 – Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review – Trials