Abstract
Clinical orthopedic studies can be affected by many forms of bias, including confounding. Any error promoting one outcome over another introduces bias into research. The risk of different types of bias can occur during many phases of research including study design, data collection, and publication. Confounding may affect both the exposure and outcome of a study and may or may not be measurable. For measurable confounding factors, methods of control include randomization, restriction, and matching. While most forms of bias can be minimized through methods such as selecting appropriate study designs and proper control groups, some bias cannot be mitigated.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amin AK, Clayton RAE, Patton JT, Gaston M, Cook RE, Brenkel IJ. Total knee replacement in morbidly obese patients: results of a prospective, matched study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2006;88-B(10):1321–6.
Cassel C, Sarndal C, Wretman J. Some uses of statistical models in connection with the nonresponse problem. In: Madow W, Olkin I, editors. Incomplete data in sample surveys, Symposium on incomplete data, proceedings, vol. 3. New York, NY: Academic; 1983.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.
Duchman K, Gao Y, Pugely A, Martin C, Callaghan J. Differences in short-term complications between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):1387–94.
Dunn WR, Lyman S, Marx R. ISAKOS scientific committee report research methodology. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(8):870–3.
Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934–9.
Flury B, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am Stat. 1986;40:249–51.
Gabbe BJ, Finch CF, Bennell KL, Wajswelner H. How valid is a self reported 12 month sports injury history? Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(6):545–7.
Gerhard T. Bias: considerations for research practice. Am J Health Pharm. 2008;65:2159–68.
Guo S, Fraser M. Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.
Hennekens C, Buring J. Epidemiology in medicine. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1987.
Hirano K, Imbens G. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: an application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2:259–78.
JBJS. JBJS Inc. Journals Level of Evidence [Internet]. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015. https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Journals-Level-of-Evidence.aspx.
Jenkinson R, Kiss A, Johnson S, Stephen D, Kreder H. Delayed wound closure increases deep-infection rate associated with lower-grade open fractures: a propensity-matched cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(5):380–6.
Jennings JM, Sibinga E. Understanding and identifying bias in research studies. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31(4):161–2.
Lim HC, Adie S, Naylor JM, Harris IA. Randomised trial support for orthopaedic surgical procedures. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e96745.
Normand S, Landrum M, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian J, Ryan T, Cleary P, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following an acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:387–98.
Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M. Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):595–601.
Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.
Rosenbaum P. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387–94.
Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy Part 1. Principles of causality in epidemiological research: time order, specification of the study base and specificity. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008a;34(2):83–7.
Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy: Part 2. Principles of causality in epidemiological research: confounding, effect modification and strength of association. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008b;34(3):185–90.
Shapiro S. Causation, bias and confounding: a hitchhiker’s guide to the epidemiological galaxy Part 3: Principles of causality in epidemiological research: statistical stability, dose- and duration-response effects, internal and external consistency, analogy and biological plausibility. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008c;34(4):261–4.
Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs. 2014;17(4):100–1.
van der Heijden RA, Oei EHG, Bron EE, van Tiel J, van Veldhoven PLJ, Klein S, et al. No difference on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in patellofemoral cartilage composition between patients with patellofemoral pain and healthy controls. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(5):1172–8.
Viswanathan M, Berkman ND, Dryden DM, Hartling L. Assessing risk of bias and confounding in observational studies of interventions or exposures: further development of the RTI item bank. Agency Healthc Res Qual. 2013:1–22.
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441–50.
Wickstrom G, Bendix T. The “Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2000;26(4):363–7.
Zlowodzki M, Jönsson A, Bhandari M. Common pitfalls in the conduct of clinical research. Med Princ Pract. 2006;15:1–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 ISAKOS
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roselaar, N., Cuadra, M.I., Lyman, S. (2019). Bias and Confounding. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)