Skip to main content
Log in

Internal validity and the risk of bias: a case for a comprehensive review

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zambon M, Biondi-Zoccai G, Bignami E, Ruggeri L, Zangrillo A, Landoni G. A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications. J Anesth. 2012 (Epub ahead of print).

  2. Berger VW. Trials: the worst possible design (except for all the rest). Int J Pers Cent Med. 2011;1:630–1.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berger VW. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomized clinical trials. Hoboken: Wiley; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger VW, Bears JD. When can a clinical trial be called ‘randomized’? Vaccine. 2003;21:468–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger VW, Alperson SY. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4:79–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The review team offered helpful comments that improved the presentation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vance W. Berger.

About this article

Cite this article

Berger, V.W. Internal validity and the risk of bias: a case for a comprehensive review. J Anesth 26, 802–803 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1420-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1420-8

Keywords

Navigation