Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research pp 23–32Cite as

Bias and Confounding

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunn WR, Lyman S, Marx R. ISAKOS scientific committee report research methodology. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(8):870–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flury B, Riedwyl H. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. Am Stat. 1986;40:249–51.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerhard T. Bias: considerations for research practice. Am J Health Pharm. 2008;65:2159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guo S, Fraser M. Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hennekens C, Buring J. Epidemiology in medicine. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. JBJS. JBJS Inc. Journals Level of Evidence [Internet]. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015. https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Journals-Level-of-Evidence.aspx.

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jennings JM, Sibinga E. Understanding and identifying bias in research studies. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31(4):161–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lim HC, Adie S, Naylor JM, Harris IA. Randomised trial support for orthopaedic surgical procedures. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e96745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenbaum P. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs. 2014;17(4):100–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zlowodzki M, Jönsson A, Bhandari M. Common pitfalls in the conduct of clinical research. Med Princ Pract. 2006;15:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Naomi Roselaar & Stephen Lyman

  2. Cirugía de Rodilla, Traumatología CLC, Santiago, Chile

    Magaly Iñiguez Cuadra

Authors
  1. Naomi Roselaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magaly Iñiguez Cuadra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Lyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Lyman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Volker Musahl

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jón Karlsson

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason L. Koh

  7. Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

    Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation