3.0 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting bias | 3/3 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T10:03:00.766807+00:00 | kb-cron |
Bias –also known as spin- in research reporting interventional medical studies could arise from, misleading reporting, misleading interpretation and inadequate extrapolation of the results or conclusions. Research reporting bias can take various forms. Misleading reporting could be attributed to failure to report adverse effects of a certain medical or surgical intervention, selective reporting of results, or inappropriate use of language in the conclusions as overstated conclusions or undue generalizations that are not supported by study's results. Misleading interpretation of research results could be attributed to misinterpretation of both statistically significant and statistically non-significant etcetera. Inadequate extrapolation of research results could be caused by extending the positive outcomes of research to include a broader or different patient population that was not originally investigated.
The selective reporting of some outcomes but not others, depending on the nature and direction of the results. A study may be published in full, but pre-specified outcomes omitted or misrepresented. Efficacy outcomes that are statistically significant have a higher chance of being fully published compared to those that are not statistically significant. Research interpretation bias or spin is prevalent across medical publications irrespective of discipline i.e. surgical versus medical and irrespective of journal ranking or study's level-of-evidence hierarchy. Notable bias (spin) has been reported in the interpretation of results of randomized control trials, although these study designs rank top in the level-of-evidence hierarchy. Contrastingly, a study found low prevalence of bias in the conclusions of non-randomized control trials published in high-ranking orthopedic publications. Control for bias in research reporting can increase trust in the published medical literature and better inform evidence-based clinical practice.
Selective reporting of suspected or confirmed adverse treatment effects is an area for particular concern because of the potential for patient harm. In a study of adverse drug events submitted to Scandinavian drug licensing authorities, reports for published studies were less likely than unpublished studies to record adverse events (for example, 56 vs 77% respectively for Finnish trials involving psychotropic drugs). Recent attention in the lay and scientific media on failure to accurately report adverse events for drugs (e.g., selective serotonin uptake inhibitors, rosiglitazone, rofecoxib) has resulted in additional publications, too numerous to review, indicating substantial selective outcome reporting (mainly suppression) of known or suspected adverse events.
== See also == Confirmation bias Funding bias Information bias (epidemiology) Meta-analysis Metascience Peer review Recall bias Selection bias
== References ==