Advertisement

Bias and Confounding

  • Naomi Roselaar
  • Magaly Iñiguez Cuadra
  • Stephen LymanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Clinical orthopedic studies can be affected by many forms of bias, including confounding. Any error promoting one outcome over another introduces bias into research. The risk of different types of bias can occur during many phases of research including study design, data collection, and publication. Confounding may affect both the exposure and outcome of a study and may or may not be measurable. For measurable confounding factors, methods of control include randomization, restriction, and matching. While most forms of bias can be minimized through methods such as selecting appropriate study designs and proper control groups, some bias cannot be mitigated.

References

  1. 1.
    Amin AK, Clayton RAE, Patton JT, Gaston M, Cook RE, Brenkel IJ. Total knee replacement in morbidly obese patients: results of a prospective, matched study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2006;88-B(10):1321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassel C, Sarndal C, Wretman J. Some uses of statistical models in connection with the nonresponse problem. In: Madow W, Olkin I, editors. Incomplete data in sample surveys, Symposium on incomplete data, proceedings, vol. 3. New York, NY: Academic; 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duchman K, Gao Y, Pugely A, Martin C, Callaghan J. Differences in short-term complications between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):1387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunn WR, Lyman S, Marx R. ISAKOS scientific committee report research methodology. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(8):870–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flury B, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am Stat. 1986;40:249–51.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbe BJ, Finch CF, Bennell KL, Wajswelner H. How valid is a self reported 12 month sports injury history? Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(6):545–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerhard T. Bias: considerations for research practice. Am J Health Pharm. 2008;65:2159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo S, Fraser M. Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hennekens C, Buring J. Epidemiology in medicine. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirano K, Imbens G. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: an application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2:259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    JBJS. JBJS Inc. Journals Level of Evidence [Internet]. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015. https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Journals-Level-of-Evidence.aspx.
  15. 15.
    Jenkinson R, Kiss A, Johnson S, Stephen D, Kreder H. Delayed wound closure increases deep-infection rate associated with lower-grade open fractures: a propensity-matched cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(5):380–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jennings JM, Sibinga E. Understanding and identifying bias in research studies. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31(4):161–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim HC, Adie S, Naylor JM, Harris IA. Randomised trial support for orthopaedic surgical procedures. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e96745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Normand S, Landrum M, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian J, Ryan T, Cleary P, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following an acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:387–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M. Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):595–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenbaum P. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy Part 1. Principles of causality in epidemiological research: time order, specification of the study base and specificity. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008a;34(2):83–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy: Part 2. Principles of causality in epidemiological research: confounding, effect modification and strength of association. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008b;34(3):185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy Part 3: Principles of causality in epidemiological research: statistical stability, dose- and duration-response effects, internal and external consistency, analogy and biological plausibility. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008c;34(4):261–4.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs. 2014;17(4):100–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Heijden RA, Oei EHG, Bron EE, van Tiel J, van Veldhoven PLJ, Klein S, et al. No difference on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in patellofemoral cartilage composition between patients with patellofemoral pain and healthy controls. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1172–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Viswanathan M, Berkman ND, Dryden DM, Hartling L. Assessing risk of bias and confounding in observational studies of interventions or exposures: further development of the RTI item bank. Agency Healthc Res Qual. 2013:1–22.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wickstrom G, Bendix T. The “Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2000;26(4):363–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zlowodzki M, Jönsson A, Bhandari M. Common pitfalls in the conduct of clinical research. Med Princ Pract. 2006;15:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi Roselaar
    • 1
  • Magaly Iñiguez Cuadra
    • 2
  • Stephen Lyman
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Cirugía de Rodilla, Traumatología CLCSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations