The Importance of Reporting Biases in Patient Care: Can We Trust the Evidence From Either Individual Studies or Systematic Reviews?
Authors: Kay Dickersin, Riaz Qureshi
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2018)

Editorials18 September 2018The Importance of Reporting Biases in Patient Care: Can We Trust the Evidence From Either Individual Studies or Systematic Reviews?Kay Dickersin, MA, PhD and Riaz Qureshi, MScKay Dickersin, MA, PhDJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.D., R.Q.)Search for more papers by this author and Riaz Qureshi, MScJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.D., R.Q.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2258 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Regardless of your preferred source of evidence on treatment effectiveness, it seems that reporting biases are threatening our understanding of the truth (1). Reporting biases arise when the accessible reporting of research findings is influenced by the nature and direction of results. Although the clinician's primary goal of treating patients appropriately and the methodologist's of assuring the quality of research evidence may be different, both want to know “the truth” and are concerned with reporting biases because they affect the conclusions drawn and patient care.Many clinicians prefer to focus on results from a single or a few selected trials; ...References1. Dechartres A, Atal I, Riveros C, Meerpohl J, Ravaud P. Association between publication characteristics and treatment effect estimates. A meta-epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:385-93. doi:10.7326/M18-1517 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Altman DG. Statistics in medical papers. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1977;11:274-80. [PMID: 323475] MedlineGoogle Scholar3. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Grimes DA, Doré CJ. The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1995;Doc No 197:[81 paragraphs]. [PMID: 8542098] MedlineGoogle Scholar4. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K; MUDS investigators. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39-50. [PMID: 28529187] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Goodman S, Dickersin K. Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:61-2. [PMID: 21727295]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00010 LinkGoogle Scholar6. Liao JM, Stack CB. Annals understanding clinical research: implications of missing data due to dropout. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:596-8. [PMID: 28241264]. doi:10.7326/M17-0195 LinkGoogle Scholar7. Liao JM, Stack CB, Griswold ME, Localio AR. Annals understanding clinical research: intention-to-treat analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:662-4. [PMID: 28288485]. doi:10.7326/M17-0196 LinkGoogle Scholar8. Cornell JE, Liao JM, Stack CB, Mulrow CD. Annals understanding clinical research: evaluating the meaning of a summary estimate in a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:275-7. [PMID: 28785763]. doi:10.7326/M17-1454 LinkGoogle Scholar9. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P; Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:525-31. [PMID: 22473437]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009 LinkGoogle Scholar10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-6. [PMID: 18436948] doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (K.D., R.Q.)Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M18-2258.Corresponding Author: Kay Dickersin, MA, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205; e-mail, [email protected]edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Dickersin and Mr. Qureshi: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.This article was published at Annals.org on 21 August 2018. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoAssociation Between Publication Characteristics and Treatment Effect Estimates Agnes Dechartres , Ignacio Atal , Carolina Riveros , Joerg Meerpohl , and Philippe Ravaud Metrics 18 September 2018Volume 169, Issue 6Page: 413-414KeywordsClinical trial reportingDecision makingDisclosureGrading of Recommendations Assessment Development and EvaluationOdds ratioPatientsPrevention, policy, and public healthResearch reporting guidelinesStatistical dataSystematic reviews ePublished: 21 August 2018 Issue Published: 18 September 2018 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2018 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...