Surveillance bias in outcomes reporting.
Summary of "Surveillance bias in outcomes reporting."
No Summary Available
Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org
This article was published in the following journal.
Name: JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
- PubMed Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21673300
- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.822
Studies have shown that children and parents provide different reports of children's victimization, with children often reporting more victimization. However, the reason for this differential reportin...
The goal of the current study was to develop and pilot the utility of two simple internal response bias metrics, over-reporting and under-reporting, in terms of additive clinical value within common s...
Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If anal...
Objective: The early intervention in psychosis literature has recently appropriated clinical terms with etiologic implications such as staging and pluripotent from the oncology literature without adop...
Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 9 sessions of computerized attentional bias training on attentional bias and on symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether an internet-based treatment program, consisting of combined cognitive bias modification and cognitive behavioral therapy, reduces symptoms...
The purpose of this study is to determine whether identification of two different bacteria in urine culture of patients with indwelling catheter has a clinical impact - change in antibioti...
Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a complex medical condition associated with significant distress, disability, and reduction in quality of life. Research has shown that patients with chron...
The Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) is a research study for men who have chosen active surveillance as a management plan for their prostate cancer. Active surveillance is defined...
Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions
A cancer registry mandated under the National Cancer Act of 1971 to operate and maintain a population-based cancer reporting system, reporting periodically estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in the United States. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program is a continuing project of the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Among its goals, in addition to assembling and reporting cancer statistics, are the monitoring of annual cancer incident trends and the promoting of studies designed to identify factors amenable to cancer control interventions. (From National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No. 91-3074, October 1990)
Systems for assessing, classifying, and coding injuries. These systems are used in medical records, surveillance systems, and state and national registries to aid in the collection and reporting of trauma.
Any deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); flaws in study design; deviation of inferences, interpretations, or analyses based on flawed data or data collection; etc. There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.
Adverse of favorable selection bias exhibited by insurers or enrollees resulting in disproportionate enrollment of certain groups of people.
The influence of study results on the chances of publication and the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings. Publication bias has an impact on the interpretation of clinical trials and meta-analyses. Bias can be minimized by insistence by editors on high-quality research, thorough literature reviews, acknowledgement of conflicts of interest, modification of peer review practices, etc.