High impact information on Bias (Epidemiology)

• No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found [1].
• Only by otoscopic judgment, which is shown to contain a systematic bias as used in this clinical trial, could an argument be made for a marginal efficacy of amoxicillin at the 4-week end point [2].
• Fluoride and fractures: an ecological fallacy [3].
• Statistical biases in the distribution of alternative mRNA forms among EST libraries were systematically sought [4].
• No systematic bias was detected at any of the prespecified glucose levels (50, 80, 100, 150, and 200 mg/dl) [5].

Biological context of Bias (Epidemiology)

• RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between CCO and TCO was 0.92, no systematic bias was observed, and the relative error increased from 13.9% for a cardiac output of 21/min to 23.7% for an output of 101/min [6].

Associations of Bias (Epidemiology) with chemical compounds

• However, a Bland-Altman plot showed a systematic bias towards higher values (1.75-fold higher; 95% confidence interval = 1.02-3.01) in the Nichols than in the Cisbio assay following aliskiren administration [7].
• It is important to realize that this systematic bias is present in dilute solutions of low absorptivity, and the experimentally recorded extinction coefficient for a molecular standard such as caffeine can vary approximately 4% or more, depending upon choice of research instrumentation [8].
• After recalibrating our serum creatinine values (serum creatinine [mg/dL] = -0.215 + 1.08 * serum creatinine), systematic bias was greatly reduced and better accuracy was achieved: 45.6% of results differed less than 15% from Cr-EDTA, 64.2% differed less than 30%, and 81.4% differed less than 50% [9].
• There was no significant systematic bias between trials for either maximum accumulated oxygen deficit (man +/- s: trial 1 = 69.0+/-13.1; trial 2 = 71.4+/-12.5; trial 3 = 70.4+/-15.0 ml O2 Eq x kg(-1); ANOVA, F = 0.70, PP= 0.51) or exercise time to exhaustion (trial 1 = 194 + 31.1; trial 2 = 198 + 33.2; trial 3 = 201 + 36.8 s; F= 1.49, P = 0.24) [10].

Gene context of Bias (Epidemiology)

• Bland-Altman analysis showed no evidence of a systematic bias between the TEST 1 and the reference method [11].
• Repeated ANOVA revealed no systematic bias between the three tests for RPE, and other measures of reliability were also favorable [12].
• While discrepancies were likely due, in part, to species-specific variations in ER structure and ligand binding affinity, a systematic bias in structural characteristics of chemicals in the hERalpha training set, compared to the rodent evaluation data sets, also contributed to prediction errors [13].
• In this series, one third of SLE patients could not be HLA-DR typed by serological techniques, highlighting the potential for systematic bias in DR antigen assignment in studies of HLA and SLE [14].
• The TMS-1 showed a systematic bias, measuring a greater power in the steeper meridian than the Zeiss 10 SL/O keratometer [15].

Analytical, diagnostic and therapeutic context of Bias (Epidemiology)

• Conversely, EPORIA showed significant positive bias and the two remaining methods, EPO EIA and IBL ELISA, showed no evidence of systematic bias when compared with EPO-Trac RIA [16].

References