How to avoid interviewer bias in qualitative research

1. Godlee F. Milestones on the long road to knowledge. BMJ. 2007;334(Suppl 1):s2–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, et al. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br. J. Surg. 1997;84:1220–1223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Loiselle F, Mahabir RC, Harrop AR. Levels of evidence in plastic surgery research over 20 years. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2008;121:207e–11e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Chang EY, Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Quality of clinical studies in aesthetic surgery journals: A 10-year review. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2009;29:144–7. discussion 147-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias.

7. Merriam-Webster.com; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias.

8. Gerhard T. Bias: Considerations for research practice. Am. J. Health. Syst. Pharm. 2008;65:2159–2168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: A quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev. Med. 1991;20:47–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the women's health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. heart and Estrogen/progestin replacement study (HERS) research group. JAMA. 1998;280:605–613. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Burkhardt BR, Eades E. The effect of biocell texturing and povidone-iodine irrigation on capsular contracture around saline-inflatable breast implants. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1995;96:1317–1325. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Caprini JA. Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis. Mon. 2005;51:70–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Davison SP, Venturi ML, Attinger CE, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the plastic surgery patient. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2004;114:43E–51E. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009;124:345–353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. north american symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial collaborators. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998;339:1415–1425. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Ferguson GG, Eliasziw M, Barr HW, et al. The north american symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial : Surgical results in 1415 patients. Stroke. 1999;30:1751–1758. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in Medicine. Little, Brown, and Company; Boston: 1987. [Google Scholar]

19. Lobo FS, Wagner S, Gross CR, et al. Addressing the issue of channeling bias in observational studies with propensity scores analysis. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 2006;2:143–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Paradis C. Bias in surgical research. Ann. Surg. 2008;248:180–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Davis RE, Couper MP, Janz NK, et al. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Educ. Res. 2009 [Google Scholar]

22. Andrews N, Miller E, Taylor B, et al. Recall bias, MMR, and autism. Arch. Dis. Child. 2002;87:493–494. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1996. [Google Scholar]

24. Ultee J, van Neck JW, Jaquet JB, et al. Difficulties in conducting a prospective outcome study. Hand Clin. 2003;19:457–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Anderson FA, Jr, Wheeler HB, Goldberg RJ, et al. A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. the worcester DVT study. Arch. Intern. Med. 1991;151:933–938. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Gaitini D. Current approaches and controversial issues in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis via duplex doppler ultrasound. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2006;34:289–297. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Winer-Muram HT, Rydberg J, Johnson MS, et al. Suspected acute pulmonary embolism: Evaluation with multi-detector row CT versus digital subtraction pulmonary arteriography. Radiology. 2004;233:806–815. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Schoepf UJ. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism: Time to rewrite the textbooks. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 2005;21:155–163. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–1364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, et al. Clinical trial registration--looking back and moving ahead. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;356:2734–2736. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Chang CC, Wong CH, Wei FC. Free-style free flap. Injury. 2008;39(Suppl 3):S57–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Wei FC, Mardini S. Free-style free flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2004;114:910–916. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Koshima I, Inagawa K, Urushibara K, et al. Paraumbilical perforator flap without deep inferior epigastric vessels. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1998;102:1052–1057. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: The struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2003;3:28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Bonell C, Oakley A, Hargreaves J, et al. Assessment of generalisability in trials of health interventions: Suggested framework and systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333:346–349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Bornhoft G, Maxion-Bergemann S, Wolf U, et al. Checklist for the qualitative evaluation of clinical studies with particular focus on external validity and model validity. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006;6:56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials. 1996;17:1–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, et al. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2009;96:342–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987–1991. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Masia J, Kosutic D, Clavero JA, et al. Preoperative computed tomographic angiogram for evaluation of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. J. Reconstr Microsurg. Epub ahead of print. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Page 2

Tips to avoid different types of bias during a trial.

Type of Bias	How to Avoid

Pre-trial bias
Flawed study design	• Clearly define risk and outcome, preferably with objective or validated methods. Standardize and blind data collection.
Selection bias	• Select patients using rigorous criteria to avoid confounding results. Patients should originate from the same general population. Well designed, prospective studies help to avoid selection bias as outcome is unknown at time of enrollment.
Channeling bias	• Assign patients to study cohorts using rigorous criteria.

Bias during trial
Interviewer bias	• Standardize interviewer's interaction with patient. Blind interviewer to exposure status.
Chronology bias	• Prospective studies can eliminate chronology bias. Avoid using historic controls (confounding by secular trends).
Recall bias	• Use objective data sources whenever possible. When using subjective data sources, corroborate with medical record. Conduct prospective studies because outcome is unknown at time of patient enrollment.
Transfer bias	• Carefully design plan for lost-to-followup patients prior to the study.
Exposure Misclassification	• Clearly define exposure prior to study. Avoid using proxies of exposure.
Outcome Misclassification	• Use objective diagnostic studies or validated measures as primary outcome.
Performance bias	• Consider cluster stratification to minimize variability in surgical technique.

Bias after trial
Citation bias	• Register trial with an accepted clinical trials registry. Check registries for similar unpublished or in-progress trials prior to publication.
Confounding	• Known confounders can be controlled with study design (case control design or randomization) or during data analysis (regression). Unknown confounders can only be controlled with randomization.

Q&a Wer

How to avoid interviewer bias in qualitative research

Page 2

zusammenhängende Posts

Werbung

NEUESTEN NACHRICHTEN

Toplisten

Werbung

Populer

Token Data

Werbung

Um

Legal

Hilfe

Sozial