Original articleOn the More Insidious Manifestations of Bias in Scientific Reporting
Section snippets
Beware the Adverbs (and Sometimes) Adjectives: Back to Basics
The variable manifestations of classic scientific methodologic bias in the reporting of results have been previously summarized [3]. Notwithstanding this prior review, certain identifiable and some less obvious manners of reporting should alert readers and reviewers to an insidious bias that has escaped attention. The use of adverbs should have a restricted place in medical discussions; objective results deserve discussions that provide for a rationale argument, without editorial emphasis. In
Omissions in Reporting
The publication of the article “Can Peer Review Contribute to Earlier Detection of Breast Cancer? A Quality Initiative to Learn From False-Negative Mammograms” [14] prompted an invited editorial comment by this author in a different journal [15]. The editorial comment clarified that the determination made by the authors was focused on an internal consensus determination of interpretative mistakes. Although errors in interpretation are an important parameter to consider, they are not tantamount
Disclosure
In 2005, as reports regarding the use of computer-assisted detection in mammography began to increase, >50% of abstracts accepted by the Radiological Society of North America were submitted by teams of investigators, at least one of whom had an equity interest in the technology, as indicated by required disclosures. Financial disclosures have been used as the simplest safeguard for conditioning potential bias, even though it is sometimes not enforced.
Companies that seek to facilitate clinical
Outlook and Suggetions
As mentioned in the introduction, the direct and derivative consequences of bias in reporting of investigational studies are no longer a simple academic faux pas. A recent review of data used to support guidelines for use of metformin found that conclusions may not have been validly based on the cited studies [23]. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was recently passed provides for enabling legislation for the Institute of Medicine to promote comparative effectiveness research,
References (27)
Data presentation bias: a source of potential error in radiology scientific publications
J Am Coll Radiol
(2009)On the logistics of interpretive radiology reporting: moving beyond Procrustes
J Am Col Radiol
(2009)Editorial comment
Breast Dis Yearbook Q
(2009)Editorial comment
Breast Dis Yearbook Q
(2009)- et al.
Effectiveness of a noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer
Am J Surg
(2008) Errors, chasms, and roadmaps
J Am Coll Radiol
(2009)Peer review: better than the alternatives
J Am Coll Cardiology
(2002)Bias in research studies
Radiology
(2006)- et al.
Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: key concepts regarding polyp prevalence, size, histology, morphology, and natural history
AJR Am J Roentgenol
(2009) - et al.
Disclosing harmful errors to patients
Radiology
(2009)
The mea culpa conundrum
Radiology
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles?
AJR Am J Roentgenol
Pattern recognition of benign nodules at ultrasound of the thyroid: which nodules can be left alone?
AJR Am J Roentgenol
Cited by (6)
Re: "on the more insidious manifestations of bias in scientific reporting"
2010, Journal of the American College of RadiologyStatus bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods
2024, Accountability in ResearchPrevalence and predictors of bias in the reporting of primary efficacy and toxicity endpoints in randomized clinical trials of radiation oncology
2016, Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation OncologyEditor's nitpicking # 2
2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology