Bias, Confounding, and Interaction: Lions and Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!

Anesthesia and Analgesia

Volumn 125, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 1042-1048

  Vetter, Thomas R ^a   Mascha, Edward J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ATTRITION BIAS; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; EXPLANATORY VARIABLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATIONAL BIAS; MISCLASSIFICATION BIAS; OBSERVATIONAL BIAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM ERROR; RANDOMIZATION; RECALL BIAS; SAMPLE SIZE; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; ANIMAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; RECALL; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 85029565559     PISSN: 00032999     EISSN: 15267598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002332     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Rothman KJ Greenland S Poole C Lash TL. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL. Causation and causal inference. In: Modern Epidemiology. 2012: Revised 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 5 31.
2. Rothman KJ. What is causation? In: Epidemiology: An Introduction. 2012: 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 23 37.
3. Glasser SP. Glasser SP. Introduction to clinical research concepts, essential characteristics of clinical research, overview of clinical research study designs. In: Essentials of Clinical Research. 2014: 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 11 32.
4. Salkind NJ. Statistics or sadistics? It's up to you. In: Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics. 2016: 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 5 18.
5. Urdan TC. Introduction to social science research principles and terminology. In: Statistics in Plain English. 2017: 4th ed. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 1 12.
6. Motulsky H. From sample to population. In: Intuitive Biostatistics: A Nonmathematical Guide to Statistical Thinking. 2014: New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 22 28.
7. Gerstman BB. Error in epidemiologic research. In: Epidemiology Kept Simple: An Introduction to Traditional and Modern Epidemiology. 2013: 3rd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 201 221.
8. Bowling A. The principles of research. In: Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. 2014: 4th ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 146 188.
9. Hulley SB Newman TB Cummings SR. Getting started: The anatomy and physiology of clinical research. In: Designing Clinical Research. 2013: 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2 13.
10. Beevers G Lip GY O'Brien E. ABC of hypertension. Blood pressure measurement. Part I-sphygmomanometry: factors common to all techniques. BMJ. 2001; 322: 981 985.
11. Keus F Wetterslev J Gluud C van Laarhoven CJ. Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10: 90.
12. Rothman KJ. Random error and the role of statistics. In: Epidemiology: An Introduction. 2012: 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 148 163.
13. Ogedegbe G Pickering T. Principles and techniques of blood pressure measurement. Cardiol Clin. 2010; 28: 571 586.
14. Glasser SP. Glasser SP. Bias, confounding, and effect modification (interaction). In: Essentials of Clinical Research. 2014: 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 362 373.
15. Grimes DA Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002; 359: 248 252.
16. Rothman KJ. Dealing with biases. In: Epidemiology: An Introduction. 2012: 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 124 147.
17. Gerhard T. Bias: considerations for research practice. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008; 65: 2159 2168.
18. Delgado-Rodríguez M Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58: 635 641.
19. Grimes DA Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002; 359: 248 252.
20. Neugebauer R Ng S. Differential recall as a source of bias in epidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43: 1337 1341.
21. Schulz KF Grimes DA. Case-control studies: research in reverse. Lancet. 2002; 359: 431 434.
22. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43: 87 91.
23. Kjellsson G Clarke P Gerdtham UG. Forgetting to remember or remembering to forget: a study of the recall period length in health care survey questions. J Health Econ. 2014; 35: 34 46.
24. Landsberger HA. Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker, Its Critics and Developments in Human Relations in Industry. 1961. Ithaca, N Y: Cornell University Press.
25. De Amici D Klersy C Ramajoli F Brustia L Politi P. Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia. Control Clin Trials. 2000; 21: 103 114.
26. McCambridge J Witton J Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 267 277.
27. Vetter TR Downing ME Vanlandingham SC Noles KM Boudreaux AM. Predictors of patient medication compliance on the day of surgery and the effects of providing patients with standardized yet simplified medication instructions. Anesthesiology. 2014; 121: 29 35.
28. Savage W. Implementing a blood utilization program to optimize transfusion practice. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015; 2015: 444 447.
29. Ivers N Jamtvedt G Flottorp S. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012: Cd000259.
30. Kohli E Ptak J Smith R Taylor E Talbot EA Kirkland KB. Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30: 222 225.
31. Gould DJ Creedon S Jeanes A Drey NS Chudleigh J Moralejo D. Impact of observing hand hygiene in practice and research: a methodological reconsideration. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 95: 169 174.
32. Fortenberry JL McGoldrick PJ. Internal marketing: a pathway for healthcare facilities to improve the patient experience. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2016; 9: 28 33.
33. McCarney R Warner J Iliffe S van Haselen R Griffin M Fisher P. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 30.
34. Thiese MS. Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014; 24: 199 210.
35. Stanley K. Evaluation of randomized controlled trials. Circulation. 2007; 115: 1819 1822.
36. Dumville JC Torgerson DJ Hewitt CE. Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006; 332: 969 971.
37. Schulz KF Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002; 359: 781 785.
38. Sessler DI Devereaux PJ. Emerging trends in clinical trial design. Anesth Analg. 2013; 116: 258 261.
39. Devereaux PJ Chan MT Eisenach J Schricker T Sessler DI. The need for large clinical studies in perioperative medicine. Anesthesiology. 2012; 116: 1169 1175.
40. Alexander L Lopes B Ricchetti-Masterson K Yeatts K. Sources of systematic error or bias: information bias. Epidemiol Res Inf Center (ERIC) Notebook. 2015; 2: 1 5. Available at: https://sph.unc.edu/files/2015/07/nciph-ERIC14.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2017.
41. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL. Validity in epidemiologic studies. In: Modern Epidemiology. 2012: Revised 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 128 147.
42. Greenland S Lash TL. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL. Bias analysis. In: Modern Epidemiology. 2012: Revised 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 345 380.
43. Lash TL Fox MP Fink AK. Applying Quantitative Bias Analysis to Epidemiologic Data. 2009. London, UK: Springer.
44. Kleinbaum DG Sullivan KM Barker ND. Information bias. In: ActivEpi Companion Textbook: A Supplement for Use with the ActivEpi CD-ROM. 2013. New York, NY: Springer.
45. Funk MJ Landi SN. Misclassification in administrative claims data: quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014; 1: 175 185.
46. Duan R Cao M Wu Y. An empirical study for impacts of measurement errors on EHR based association studies. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2016; 2016: 1764 1773.
47. Salas M Hofman A Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 149: 981 983.
48. Kahan BC Rehal S Cro S. Risk of selection bias in randomised trials. Trials. 2015; 16: 405.
49. Berger VW. Testing for baseline balance: can we finally get it right? J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 939 940.
50. Schulz KF Grimes DA. Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing. Lancet. 2002; 359: 966 970.
51. Schulz KF Grimes DA. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet. 2002; 359: 515 519.
52. Hewitt CE Torgerson DJ. Is restricted randomisation necessary? BMJ. 2006; 332: 1506 1508.
53. Kahan BC Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012; 345: e5840.
54. Zhao W. Selection bias, allocation concealment and randomization design in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 36: 263 265.
55. Rosenberger WF Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. 2016. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
56. Scales DC Adhikari NK. Maintaining allocation concealment: following your SNOSE. J Crit Care. 2005; 20: 191 193.
57. Doig GS Simpson F. Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care. 2005; 20: 187 191.
58. Fitzmaurice G. Confused by confounding? Nutrition. 2003; 19: 189 191.
59. Brookhart MA Stürmer T Glynn RJ Rassen J Schneeweiss S. Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010; 48: S114 S120.
60. Perlas A Chan VW Beattie S. Anesthesia technique and mortality after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2016; 125: 724 731.
61. Helwani MA Avidan MS Ben Abdallah A. Effects of regional versus general anesthesia on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 186 193.
62. Koch CG Li L Duncan AI. Morbidity and mortality risk associated with red blood cell and blood-component transfusion in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34: 1608 1616.
63. Bauman AE Sallis JF Dzewaltowski DA Owen N. Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 5 14.
64. Richiardi L Bellocco R Zugna D. Mediation analysis in epidemiology: methods, interpretation and bias. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42: 1511 1519.
65. VanderWeele TJ. Mediation analysis: a practitioner's guide. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016; 37: 17 32.
66. Mascha EJ Dalton JE Kurz A Saager L. Statistical grand rounds: understanding the mechanism: mediation analysis in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117: 980 994.
67. Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985: 125 136.
68. Fitzmaurice G. Adjusting for confounding. Nutrition. 2004; 20: 594 596.
69. Fitzmaurice G. Confounding: regression adjustment. Nutrition. 2006; 22: 581 583.
70. Maciejewski ML Diehr P Smith MA Hebert P. Common methodological terms in health services research and their synonyms [correction of symptoms]. Med Care. 2002; 40: 477 484.
71. Starks H Diehr P Curtis JR. The challenge of selection bias and confounding in palliative care research. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12: 181 187.
72. Kyriacou DN Lewis RJ. Confounding by indication in clinical research. JAMA. 2016; 316: 1818 1819.
73. Penrod JD Goldstein NE Deb P. When and how to use instrumental variables in palliative care research. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12: 471 474.
74. Tolles J Meurer WJ. Logistic regression: relating patient characteristics to outcomes. JAMA. 2016; 316: 533 534.
75. Haukoos JS Lewis RJ. The propensity score. JAMA. 2015; 314: 1637 1638.
76. Fitzmaurice G. Confounding: propensity score adjustment. Nutrition. 2006; 22: 1214 1216.
77. Rothman KJ. Using regression models in epidemiologic analysis. In: Epidemiology: An Introduction. 2012: 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 211 234.
78. Fitzmaurice G. The meaning and interpretation of interaction. Nutrition. 2000; 16: 313 314.
79. VanderWeele TJ Knol MJ. A tutorial on interaction. Epidemiol Methods. 2014; 3: 33 72.
80. Pearce N Greenland S. Ahrens W Pigeot I. Confounding and interaction. In: Handbook of Epidemiology. 2005: Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 371 397.
81. Greenland S Lash TL Rothman KJ. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL. Concepts of interaction. In: Modern Epidemiology. 2012: 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 71 86.
82. Rothman KJ. Measuring interactions. In: Epidemiology: An Introduction. 2012: 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: University Press; 198 210.
83. Fitzmaurice G. How to explain an interaction. Nutrition. 2001; 17: 170 171.
84. Yusuf S Wittes J Probstfield J Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991; 266: 93 98.
85. Gail M Simon R. Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics. 1985; 41: 361 372.
86. Sun X Ioannidis JP Agoritsas T Alba AC Guyatt G. How to use a subgroup analysis: users' guide to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014; 311: 405 411.