Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Bias in Clinical Cancer Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Methods and Biostatistics in Oncology

Abstract

Bias in clinical research originates when any systematic error is introduced into any phase of a study that may lead to untrue results. Bias can occur when the research question is formulated, and during data collection, analyses, interpretation, and/or reporting (including publication bias). Because study results distorted by bias might directly impact patient care and health-care policies, there have been great efforts by the scientific community to avoid the introduction of bias in cancer research. In this chapter we discuss the most frequent types of bias encountered in clinical oncology research, as well as potential solutions to minimize them.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e217. discussion e217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Boutron I, et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fletcher RH, Black B. “Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. Med Law. 2007;26(3):511–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan AW. Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med. 2008;5(11):e230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Flanagin A, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280(3):222–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Marco CA, Larkin GL. Research ethics: ethical issues of data reporting and the quest for authenticity. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(6):691–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Powerful spin in the conclusion of Wampold et al.’s re-analysis of placebo versus no-treatment trials despite similar results as in original review. J Clin Psychol. 2007;63(4):373–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vera-Badillo FE, et al. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(5):1238–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):640–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Galarraga V, Boffetta P. Coffee drinking and risk of lung cancer-a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(6):951–7. Epub 2016 Mar 28. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0727.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tam VC, et al. Compendium of unpublished phase III trials in oncology: characteristics and impact on clinical practice. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(23):3133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou Z, et al. Survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in drug effectiveness evaluation: a comparison of methods. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(10):1016–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chaiteerakij R, et al. Metformin use and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer: a cautionary lesson. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1898–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pildal J, et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(4):847–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chvetzoff G, Tannock IF. Placebo effects in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(1):19–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Tripepi G, et al. Bias in clinical research. Kidney Int. 2008;73(2):148–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Croswell JM, Ransohoff DF, Kramer BS. Principles of cancer screening: lessons from history and study design issues. Semin Oncol. 2010;37(3):202–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pitrou I, et al. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ioannidis JP. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(4):324–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sacher AG, Le LW, Leighl NB. Shifting patterns in the interpretation of phase III clinical trial outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the bar is dropping. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1407–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vera-Badillo FE, et al. Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2016;61:29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet. 1998;352(9142):1752–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ioannidis JP. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1737–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ioannidis JP, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Seruga B, et al. Reporting of serious adverse drug reactions of targeted anticancer agents in pivotal phase III clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(2):174–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsang R, Colley L, Lynd LD. Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):609–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ioannidis JP, Mulrow CD, Goodman SN. Adverse events: the more you search, the more you find. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(4):298–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reed DA, et al. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1002–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hannink G, Gooszen HG, Rovers MM. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):818–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(10):1529–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kirkham JJ, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. International Collaborative Group on Clinical Trial Registries. Position paper and consensus recommendations on clinical trial registries. Ad Hoc Working Party of the International Collaborative Group on Clinical Trials Registries. Clin Trials Metaanal. 1993;28(4–5):255–66.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA. 2003;290(4):516–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical Trial Registration. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2017.

  37. Laine C, et al. Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(26):2734–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zarin DA, Tse T. Trust but verify: trial registration and determining fidelity to the protocol. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(1):65–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo M.D., M.Sc.

  2. Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo M.D., M.Sc.

  3. Centro Universitario Contra el Cancer, Hospital Universitario Dr. Jose E. Gonzalez, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico

    Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo M.D., M.Sc.

  4. Department of Clinical Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Rachel P. Riechelmann M.D., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Francisco Emilio Vera-Badillo M.D., M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel P. Riechelmann M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital do Câncer de Barretos, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Raphael. L.C Araújo

  2. AC Camargo Cancer Center, Dir - Brazil Gastrointestinal Tumor Grup, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Rachel P. Riechelmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vera-Badillo, F.E., Riechelmann, R.P. (2018). Identifying Bias in Clinical Cancer Research. In: Araújo, R., Riechelmann, R. (eds) Methods and Biostatistics in Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71324-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71324-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71323-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71324-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation