Cited by 222Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyHealth Sciences Research and Education

Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence

Open access
Kaptchuk, Ted J·2003·BMJ

Abstract

Doctors are being encouraged to improve their critical appraisal skills to make better use of medical research. But when using these skills, it is important to remember that interpretation of data is inevitably subjective and can itself result in bias.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1453

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Kaptchuk has summarised a number of potential interpretative biases that have become widespread in science reporting, including a confirmation bias, where one tends to evaluate evidence that supports one's beliefs more favourably than evidence that challenges it.

    “Kaptchuk54 has summarised a number of potential interpretative biases that have become widespread in science reporting, including a confirmation bias, where one tends to evaluate evidence that supports one’s beliefs more favourably than evidence that challenges it.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaptchuk, T. J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Kaptchuk, Ted J
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-06-25
Volume
326
Issue
7404
Pages
1453-1455
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2101782914
Cited by
222
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
FWCI
7.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01at000402-04)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (1R01 AT00402-01, R01AT001414)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
interpretation bias, critical appraisal
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Quality Control, Research, Reproducibility of Results, 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