Cited by 179Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyResearch Data Management Practices

Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: challenges and potential solutions

Open access
Baldwin, Jessie R., Pingault, Jean-Baptiste, Schoeler, Tabea, Sallis, Hannah M., Munafò, Marcus R.·2022·European Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Analysis of secondary data sources (such as cohort studies, survey data, and administrative records) has the potential to provide answers to science and society’s most pressing questions. However, researcher biases can lead to questionable research practices in secondary data analysis, which can distort the evidence base. While pre-registration can help to protect against researcher biases, it presents challenges for secondary data analysis. In this article, we describe these challenges and propose novel solutions and alternative approaches. Proposed solutions include approaches to (1) address bias linked to prior knowledge of the data, (2) enable pre-registration of non-hypothesis-driven research, (3) help ensure that pre-registered analyses will be appropriate for the data, and (4) address difficulties arising from reduced analytic flexibility in pre-registration. For each solution, we provide guidance on implementation for researchers and data guardians. The adoption of these practices can help to protect against researcher bias in secondary data analysis, to improve the robustness of research based on existing data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10654-021-00839-0

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is clear evidence from both MR and the natural experiment of an increase in the school leaving age that an increase in the number of years in education has a causal protective effect on health behaviours such as smoking.

    “For example, there is clear evidence from both MR and the natural experiment of an increase in the school leaving age that an increase in the number of years in education has a causal protective effect on health behaviours such as smoking.156–160”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [158]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [26]Small DS, Firth D, Keele L, et al. Protocol for a study of the effect of surface mining in central appalachia on adverse birth outcomes. arXiv.org. 2020
  2. [27]Deshpande SK, Hasegawa RB, Weiss J, Small DS. Protocol for an observational study on the effects of playing football in adolescence on mental health in early adulthood. arXiv preprint 2018

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldwin, J. R., Pingault, J.-B., Schoeler, T., Sallis, H. M., & Munafò, M. R.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Baldwin, Jessie R.
Venue
European Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2022-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 0393-2990 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7284
OpenAlex
W4205384179
Cited by
178
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (215917/Z/19/Z)
  • Medical Research Foundation (MRF-160-0002-ELP-PINGA)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
researcher bias, secondary analysis, preregistration, questionable research practices, research robustness
MeSH terms
Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cohort Studies, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review