The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bias in Research Studies
Abstract
Bias is a form of systematic error that can affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process. A biased study loses validity in relation to the degree of the bias. While some study designs are more prone to bias, its presence is universal. It is difficult or even impossible to completely eliminate bias. In the process of attempting to do so, new bias may be introduced or a study may be rendered less generalizable. Therefore, the goals are to minimize bias and for both investigators and readers to comprehend its residual effects, limiting misinterpretation and misuse of data. Numerous forms of bias have been described, and the terminology can be confusing, overlapping, and specific to a medical specialty. Much of the terminology is drawn from the epidemiology literature and may not be common parlance for radiologists. In this review, various types of bias are discussed, with emphasis on the radiology literature, and common study designs in which bias occurs are presented.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Sackett, D. L. (1979) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2 · Cited by 2,075
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic Tests
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197810262991705 · Cited by 1,734
The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging
Fryback, D. G., & Thornbury, J. R. (1991) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9101100203 · Cited by 1,291
Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: A Systematic Review
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W. S., Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00010 · Cited by 798
Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good
Reid, M. C. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.274.8.645 · Cited by 712
Cited by
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003 · Cited by 1,077
Park, S. H., & Han, K. (2018) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2017171920 · Cited by 894
Comorbidities of epilepsy: current concepts and future perspectives
Keezer, M. R., Sisodiya, S. M., & Sander, J. W. (2016) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00225-2 · Cited by 778
Nowak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-008-0033-0 · Cited by 621
Kliem, S., Kröger, C., & Kosfelder, J. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021015 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- Authors
- Sica, G. T.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 238
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 780-789
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2119603520
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bias in Research Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2383041109
- The paper
- Sica, G. T. (2006). Bias in Research Studies. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383041109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
