COMMON

BIASES
FOUND ON
RESEARCH
Your presentation begins here!
START!
 Bias

• Bias is a systematic variation in which

treatment groups under study are treated or
measured differently on a consistent basis
• Bias can mislead one to conclude an erroneous
outcome
• Not all types of bias can be avoided
.
 Hot stuff bias
When a topic is
fashionable (‘hot’)
investigators may be
less critical in their
approach to their
research, and
investigators and
editors may not be able
to resist the temptation
to publish the results.
 Hot stuff

Hot stuff Bias

Section 1
Fashionable scientific areas
induce a bandwagon effect, making
Section 2
it more likely that investigators
will be keen to take part and more Section 3
likely that their approach will be
less critical than it should be; Section 4

they will, therefore, concentrate

Credits
on trying to confirm the findings
of others rather than trying to
falsify them.
 Hot stuff

Hot stuff Bias

Section 1
Negative findings may be less
likely to be published.In such Section 2
cases, the positive predictive
value becomes progressively smaller Section 3

as more studies accumulate, making

Section 4
it less likely that the
published findings are true; this Credits

may also be partly due to

regression to the mean.
 Exampl
e

Example:
Section 1
Controversial topics may lead to a heated debate about the
relative merits of a hypothesis or intervention. Examples Section 2
include the current debate about the use of statins, the long-
standing debate about the efficacy of antidepressants, such as Section 3

the SSRIs, and previous debates about the use of hormone

replacement therapy and the falsification of a link between Section 4

vaccination and autism. Often the most critical question –

Credits
what is the benefit to harm balance – is neglected in such
debates
 Suspicion/Diagnostic
suspicion bias
when knowledge of a
subject's prior
exposure may influence
subject selection or
the outcome of an
intervention.
 Diagnostic
suspicion
Suspicion/Diagnostic suspicion bias
Section 1
Diagnostic bias (sometimes
called diagnostic suspicion bias Section 2
or provider bias) is when your
perceptions color your Section 3

diagnosis.Knowledge of a
Section 4
subject’s prior exposures or
personal biases may influence Credits
both the process and the outcome
of diagnostic tests.
 Diagnostic
suspicion
Suspicion/Diagnostic suspicion bias
Section 1
This type of bias can happen
when knowledge of an exposure is Section 2
used as a diagnostic criterion.
It can also happen because Section 3

personal biases, like prejudice

Section 4
or subjective judgment affect a
diagnosis. Credits
 Examples
1.
Eack et. al found that African Americans were
three times as likely to get diagnosed with
schizophrenia compared to their white
counterparts. According to the study authors, this
is primarily because diagnosing physicians
perceived the African Americans as being less
honest about symptoms, having a poorer insight
into their condition, and generally being more
“uncooperative”.
2.
if a group of workers in the industry find out that
one of the chemicals they have been exposed to is
a carcinogen, then these workers might present to
a medical facility sooner, or be more likely to
attend screening, than a non-exposed population.
Also, medical staff might more readily suspect
these individuals than others to have cancer,
because of the knowledge of their exposure to the
carcinogen, and this might influence what tests are
done and how quickly they are ordered
Next
 Sample size bias

samples which are

too small can prove
nothing;samples
which are too large
can prove anything.
 Sample size

Sample size bias

Section 1
When the wrong sample size is used
in a study: small sample sizes often
Section 2
lead to chance findings, while large
sample sizes are often statistically
Section 3
significant but not clinically
relevant.Studies of human health Section 4
use samples to obtain information
on the whole relevant population Credits

and to represent the population of

interest accurately.
 Sample size

Sample size bias

When a small sample size is used, Section 1

the risk is high that observations

Section 2
will be due to chance, something
studies with larger sample sizes Section 3
avoid. However, while larger
studies can detect tiny or small Section 4

associations, they might not be

Credits
important or relevant to improving
human health.
Examples Sample
size

Section 1

Section 2
1.
As an example, in
In Ioannidis paper on ‘ placebo-controlled trials Section 3
Why Most Published Research of second-line
Findings Are False antirheumatic drugs, Section 4
,’ he states that ‘the smaller the
sample size bias
studies conducted in a
demonstrated the effect Credits
scientific field, the less likely
decreased with
the research findings are to be
true.
increasing sample size.
Examples Sample
size

Section 1

2.
Large sample sizes can also
prove to be wrong. In the 1936 US
election, the largest public opinion
poll in US history amongst 2.4
million respondents got it
completely wrong. The poll results
said Landon would win by a
landslide. However, Roosevelt won
46 of the 48 states.
Section 2
The survey was conducted
by the Literary Digest who Section 3
surveyed their readers who
supported Landon. This was
Section 4
a result of
ascertainment bias, but the
point is, don’t be fooled by Credits
the size of the sample.
“It is a capital mistake to
theorize before one has
data. Insensibly one begins
to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories
to suit facts.”
—SH

SH