On the Need for Quantitative Bias Analysis in the Peer-Review Process

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 185, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 865-868

  Fox, Matthew P ^a,b   Lash, Timothy L ^c,d  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

bias; causal inference; error; peer review; quantitative bias analysis; systematic error

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; ERROR ANALYSIS; LITERATURE REVIEW; METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH WORK; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EDITOR; FUNDING; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 85020410979     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx057     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):132-161.
2. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178-182.
3. Lash TL, Fox M, Fink AK. Applying Quantitative Bias Analysis to Epidemiologic Data. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.
4. Greenland S. Sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo risk analysis, and Bayesian uncertainty assessment. Risk Anal. 2001;21(4): 579-583.
5. Greenland S, Lash T. Bias analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds.Modern Epidemiology. Philidelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008:345-380.
6. MacLehose RF, Gustafson P. Is probabilistic bias analysis approximately Bayesian Epidemiology. 2012;23(1):151-158.
7. Jurek AM, Maldonado G, Greenland S. Adjusting for outcome misclassification: the importance of accounting for casecontrol sampling and other forms of outcome-related selection. Ann Epidemiol. 2013;23(3):129-135.
8. Phillips C. Quantifying and reporting uncertainty from systematic errors. Epidemiology. 2003;14(4):459-466.
9. Greenland S. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25(6):1107-1116.
10. Ioannidis JP. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(4):324-329.
11. Lash TL, Fink AK. Semi-automated sensitivity analysis to assess systematic errors in observational data. Epidemiology. 2003;14(4):451-458.
12. Fox MP, Lash TL, Greenland S. A method to automate probabilistic sensitivity analyses of misclassified binary variables. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(6):1370-1376.
13. Fox MP, Lash TL, Hamer DH. A sensitivity analysis of a randomized controlled trial of zinc in treatment of falciparum malaria in children. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(3):281-289.
14. Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, et al. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(6): 1969-1985.
15. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
16. Lash TL. Heuristic thinking and inference from observational epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2007;18(1):67-72.
17. Fink AK, Lash TL. A null association between smoking during pregnancy and breast cancer using Massachusetts registry data (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14(5):497-503.
18. Fox MP. Creating a demand for bias analysis in epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(2):91.
19. Lash TL, Olshan AF. EPIDEMIOLOGY announces the "validation study" submission category. Epidemiology. 2016; 27(5):613-614.
20. Lash TL, Ahern TP. Bias analysis to guide new data collection. Int J Biostat. 2012;8(2):1-23.
21. Hazir T, Fox LM, Nisar YB, et al. Ambulatory short-course high-dose oral amoxicillin for treatment of severe pneumonia in children: A randomised equivalency trial. Lancet. 2008; 371(9606):49-56.