Catalogue of Bias

[CRG]

Catalogue of Bias

About

Bias enters health studies at all stages and often influences the magnitude and direction of results. To obtain the least biased information, researchers must acknowledge the potential presence of biases and take steps to avoid and minimise their effects. Equally, in assessing the results of studies, we must be aware of the different types of biases, their potential impact and how this affects interpretation and use of evidence in healthcare decision making.

To better understand the persistent presence, diversity, and impact of biases, we are compiling a Catalogue of Bias, stemming from original work by David Sackett. The entries are a work in progress and describe a wide range of biases – outlining their potential impact in research studies.

https://catalogofbias.org/

 

[Shadrach Loom]

Although this is very comprehensive, I can’t find an account of eminence bias: the weight that is attached to pronouncements by persons of high repute, even when they are operating outside of their normal field. All’s-well bias and confirmation bias are the closest I could find. The “industry sponsorship biases” are also related, but the collators don’t seem to think that senior academics ever have base or unacknowledged motives.

However, eminence bias is mainly manifested when senior academics get a free pass on work which displays the biases that CEBM has included, so it’s definitely a laudable resource.

 

[Sly Saint]

allegiance bias is also not there (afaics):

see recent cbt watch blog:
BMJ Mental Health and Bias

It is regrettable that BMJ Mental Health marks its transition from the Journal Evidence-based Mental Health with the publication of a paper by O’Driscoll et al (2023) that obscures allegiance bias, by the authors simply declaring what grants they receive. The authors work either for NHS trusts or IAPT, the former operate the latter. They use an IAPT dataset and uncritically utilise the services self-serving metric of recovery. These authors have not considered the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool against which the study would have been judged as at high risk of bias. There is no acknowledgement of works that cast serious doubts on the Services claimed 50% recovery rate, Capobianco et al (2023), Scott (2018).

The O’Driscoll et al (2023) paper claims that CBT may be preferred to counselling for clients who have anxiety symptoms comorbid with depression. But the conclusions are built on sand

http://www.cbtwatch.com/bmj-mental-health-and-bias/