Original article
On the More Insidious Manifestations of Bias in Scientific Reporting

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.007Get rights and content

Although bias in scientific reporting has been the focus of prior commentary, more insidious aspects of such bias often excape attention by authors, reviewers, editorial boards, and commentators. Such bias is no longer simply academic because health care policy, which is increasingly predicated upon evidence-based scientific literature, may be adversely impacted by lack of balanced and objective publications in peer reviewed journals.

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)

  • L. Berlin

    The mea culpa conundrum

    Radiology

    (2009)
  • S.R. Wilson et al.

    Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles?

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2009)
  • J.A. Bonavita et al.

    Pattern recognition of benign nodules at ultrasound of the thyroid: which nodules can be left alone?

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2009)

    • Cited by (6)

    View full text
    Copyright © 2010 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.