RT Book, Section
A1 Guyatt, Gordon
A1 Jaeschke, Roman
A1 Meade, Maureen O.
A2 Guyatt, Gordon
A2 Rennie, Drummond
A2 Meade, Maureen O.
A2 Cook, Deborah J.
SR Print(0)
ID 1183875674
T1 Why Study Results Mislead: Bias and Random Error
T2 Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
YR 2015
FD 2015
PB McGraw-Hill Education
PP New York, NY
SN 978-0-07-179071-0
LK jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?aid=1183875674
RD 2024/04/19
AB Our  clinical  questions  have  correct  answers  that  correspond  to  an  underlying  reality  or  truth.  For  instance,  there  is  a  true  underlying  magnitude  of  the  impact  of  β-blockers  on  mortality  in  patients  with  heart  failure,  the  impact  of  inhaled  corticosteroids  on  exacerbations  in  patients  with  asthma,  the  impact  of  reamed  vs  unreamed  nailing  of  tibial  fractures,  the  prognosis  of  patients  with  hip  osteoarthritis,  and  the  diagnostic  properties  of  a  pregnancy  test.  Research  studies  attempt  to  estimate  that  underlying  truth.  Unfortunately,  however,  we  will  never  know  the  exact  truth.  Studies  may  be  flawed  in  their  design  or  conduct  and  introduce  systematic  error  (or  bias).  Even  if  a  study  could  be  perfectly  designed  and  executed,  the  estimated  treatment  effect  may  miss  the  mark  because  of  random  error.  The  next  section  explains  why.