Clinimetrics corner: the many faces of selection bias

References

• Stang A. Appropriate epidemiologic methods as a prerequisite for valid study results. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23:761–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman JM, Forsen JW, Jr., Wallace MS, Neely JG. Tutorials in clinical research: Part IV: recognizing and controlling bias. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:23–31. 4 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton-Tyrrell K. Assessing bias in case-control studies: proper selection of cases and controls. Stroke. 1991;22:938–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen SJ, Xia Z, Campion ME, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:330–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzkin A, Slud E. Competing risks bias arising from an omitted risk factor. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:850–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Exclusion bias and the false relationship of reserpine and breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145:1873–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ross JA, Spector LG, Olshan AF, Bunin GR. Invited commentary: birth certificates-A best control scenario? Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:922–4; discussion 925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrighi HM, Hertz-Picciotto I. The evolving concept of the healthy worker survivor effect. Epidemiology. 1994;5:189–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenland S. Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;106:184–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong S. Migration bias in ecologic studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16:365–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32:51–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leeflang MM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Zwinderman AH. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cutoff values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions. Clin Chem. 2008;54:729–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein AM, Hodge SE, Haile RW. Selection bias in case-control studies using relatives as the controls. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:985–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sy R, Bannon P, Bayfield M, Brown C, Kritharides L. Survivor treatment selection bias and outcomes research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:469–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly S, Berry E, Roderick P, Harris KM, Cullingworth J, Gathercole L, et al. The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1028–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36:160–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlan AD, Imamura M, Dryden T, Irvin E. Massage for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 2009;34:1669–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Licciardone JC, Russo DP. Blinding protocols, treatment credibility, and expectancy: methodologic issues in clinical trials of osteopathic manipulative treatment. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2006;106:457–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:982–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998;317:1185–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (12):MR000012.
   Google Scholar
• Houben R, Ostelo R, Vlaeyen J, Wolters P, Peters M, Stomp-van den Berg S. Health care providers’ orientations toward common low back pain predict perceived harmfulness of physical activities and recommendations regarding return to normal activity. Eur J Pain. 2005;9:173–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR, et al. A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:920–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, Herbert RD, McAuley JH. Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:936–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haldeman S, Carey P, Townsend M, Papadopoulos C. Clinical perceptions of the risk of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation: the effect of referral bias. Spine. 2002;2:334–42.
   Google Scholar
• Reiman MP, Harris JY, Cleland J. Manual therapy interventions for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review. NZ J Physio. 2009;37:17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mulherin SA, Miller WC. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:598–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goehring C, Perrier A, Morabia A. Spectrum bias: a quantitative and graphical analysis of the variability of medical diagnostic test performance. Stat Med. 2004;23:125–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegedus EJ, Goode A, Campbell S, Morin A, Tamaddoni M, Moorman CT, et al. Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42:80–92; discussion 92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mimori K, Muneta T, Nakagawa T, Shinomiya K. A new pain provocation test for superior labral tears of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:137–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parentis MA, Glousman RE, Mohr KS, Yocum LA. An evaluation of the provocative tests for superior labral anterior posterior lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:265–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii, 1–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:469–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar