Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Aug 1;190(8):1604-1612. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab072.
Quantitative bias analysis comprises the tools used to estimate the direction, magnitude, and uncertainty from systematic errors affecting epidemiologic research. Despite the availability of methods and tools, and guidance for good practices, few reports of epidemiologic research incorporate quantitative estimates of bias impacts. The lack of familiarity with bias analysis allows for the possibility of misuse, which is likely most often unintentional but could occasionally include intentional efforts to mislead. We identified 3 examples of suboptimal bias analysis, one for each common bias. For each, we describe the original research and its bias analysis, compare the bias analysis with good practices, and describe how the bias analysis and research findings might have been improved. We assert no motive to the suboptimal bias analysis by the original authors. Common shortcomings in the examples were lack of a clear bias model, computed example, and computing code; poor selection of the values assigned to the bias model's parameters; and little effort to understand the range of uncertainty associated with the bias. Until bias analysis becomes more common, community expectations for the presentation, explanation, and interpretation of bias analyses will remain unstable. Attention to good practices should improve quality, avoid errors, and discourage manipulation.
定量偏倚分析包括用于估计系统误差对流行病学研究影响的方向、大小和不确定性的工具。尽管有方法和工具,以及良好实践的指南,但很少有流行病学研究报告包含对偏倚影响的定量估计。对偏倚分析的不熟悉使得误用的可能性增加,这种误用很可能大多是无意的,但偶尔也可能包括故意误导的意图。我们确定了 3 个次优偏倚分析的例子,每个例子对应一种常见的偏倚。对于每个例子,我们描述了原始研究及其偏倚分析,将偏倚分析与良好实践进行了比较,并描述了如何改进偏倚分析和研究结果。我们断言原始作者没有进行次优偏倚分析的动机。这些例子中的常见缺陷包括缺乏明确的偏倚模型、计算示例和计算代码;对偏倚模型参数赋值的选择不当;以及很少努力理解与偏倚相关的不确定性范围。在偏倚分析变得更加普遍之前,社区对偏倚分析的呈现、解释和解释的期望将仍然不稳定。关注良好实践应该会提高质量,避免错误,并遏制操纵。