Cited by 636Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Bias in clinical intervention research.

Gluud, Lise Lotte·2006·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Research on bias in clinical trials may help identify some of the reasons why investigators sometimes reach the wrong conclusions about intervention effects. Several quality components for the assessment of bias control have been suggested, but although they seem intrinsically valid, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate their effects on the extent and direction of bias. This narrative review summarizes the findings of methodological studies on the influence of bias in clinical trials. A number of methodological studies suggest that lack of adequate randomization in published trial reports may be associated with more positive estimates of intervention effects. The influence of double-blinding and follow-up is less clear. Several studies have found a significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions. However, the methodological studies also show that bias is difficult to detect and appraise. The extent of bias in individual trials is unpredictable. A-priori exclusion of trials with certain characteristics is not recommended. Appraising bias control in individual trials is necessary to avoid making incorrect conclusions about intervention effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwj069

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gluud, L. L.
Affiliations
Rigshospitalet (DK)
Corresponding author
Gluud, Lise Lotte
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2006-01-27
Volume
163
Issue
6
Pages
493-501
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2127765911
Cited by
636
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 41
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
bias in clinical trials, bias control, double blinding, follow-up, funding sources, industry funding, publication bias, bias assessment, trial quality, intervention effects
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Support as Topic, Selection Bias, Odds Ratio, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Publication Bias, Sample Size, Evidence-Based Medicine

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