• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Risk of bias: why measure it, and how?偏倚风险：为何要衡量它，以及如何衡量？
Eye (Lond). 2022 Feb;36(2):346-348. doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01759-9. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
2
What is Collider Bias and Why Should We Care?什么是对撞机偏倚，我们为何要关注？
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Sep;80(9):1463-1465. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.04.019. Epub 2022 May 2.
3
Authors' rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to "Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools".作者对综合风险信息系统（IRIS）针对《使用三种工具评估人类环境流行病学研究中的偏倚风险：不同工具得出不同结论》的回复的反驳。
Syst Rev. 2022 Mar 23;11(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01894-8.
4
Discerning bias in forensic psychological reports in insanity cases.识别精神错乱案件中法医心理报告中的偏差。
Behav Sci Law. 2018 May;36(3):325-338. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2346. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
5
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区，服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中，叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
6
Induced abortion, bias, and breast cancer: why epidemiology hasn't reached its limit.人工流产、偏倚与乳腺癌：为何流行病学尚未达到极限。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996 Dec 4;88(23):1698-700. doi: 10.1093/jnci/88.23.1698.
7
[Index event bias: why causal factors appear not to apply to disease recurrence].[索引事件偏差：为何因果因素似乎不适用于疾病复发]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155:A3458.
8
Why Do Actions in Slow Motion Appear to Last Longer? On the Effect of Video Speed Information.慢动作中的动作为何看起来持续时间更长？关于视频速度信息的影响。
Perception. 2021 Jan;50(1):69-79. doi: 10.1177/0301006620982212.
9
Negative Interpretation Bias and the Experience of Pain in Adolescents.消极解释偏差与青少年的疼痛体验
J Pain. 2016 Sep;17(9):972-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.05.009. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
10
Simulations and directed acyclic graphs explained why assortative mating biases the prenatal negative control design.模拟和有向无环图解释了为什么同型交配会偏向产前负向对照设计。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.008. Epub 2019 Nov 2.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of extended reality cognitive behavioral therapy on mental disorders among children and youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.扩展现实认知行为疗法对儿童和青少年精神障碍的影响：一项系统评价和荟萃分析方案
PLoS One. 2025 Mar 6;20(3):e0315313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315313. eCollection 2025.
2
Various biases in systematic review and meta-analysis and their assessment.系统评价与Meta分析中的各种偏倚及其评估
Indian J Anaesth. 2025 Jan;69(1):138-142. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_1212_24. Epub 2025 Jan 11.
3
Describing randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.描述骨科手术系统评价中纳入的试验的随机化情况。
Bone Jt Open. 2024 Dec 4;5(12):1072-1080. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.512.BJO-2024-0042.R1.
4
From lab to life: challenges and perspectives of fNIRS for haemodynamic-based neurofeedback in real-world environments.从实验室到现实生活：基于血流动力学的神经反馈的近红外光谱在真实环境中的挑战与展望。
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024 Dec 2;379(1915):20230087. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0087. Epub 2024 Oct 21.
5
The effectiveness of emotion-oriented approaches on psychological outcomes and cognitive function in older adults: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.情绪导向方法对老年人心理结果和认知功能的影响：随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
J Glob Health. 2024 Jun 28;14:04123. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04123.
6
Anakinra authorized to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019; Sepsis breakthrough or time to reflect?阿那白滞素被批准用于治疗重症2019冠状病毒病；是脓毒症的突破还是反思的时候了？
Front Microbiol. 2023 Oct 19;14:1250483. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1250483. eCollection 2023.
7
Reading Between the Lines: Navigating Nuance in Medical Literature to Optimize Clinical Decision-Making and Health Care Outcomes.字里行间的解读：在医学文献中把握细微差别以优化临床决策和医疗保健结果。
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023 Oct 19;14:1167-1176. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S427663. eCollection 2023.
8
Blood pressure, calcium channel blockers, and the risk of prostate cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.血压、钙通道阻滞剂与前列腺癌风险：一项孟德尔随机化研究。
Cancer Causes Control. 2023 Aug;34(8):725-734. doi: 10.1007/s10552-023-01712-z. Epub 2023 May 13.
9
Is It Time to Cross the Pillars of Evidence in Favor of Segmentectomies in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer?是时候跨越支持早期非小细胞肺癌肺段切除术的证据支柱了吗？
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 27;15(7):1993. doi: 10.3390/cancers15071993.
10
S110-Opioid-free analgesia after outpatient general surgery: A qualitative study focused on the perspectives of patients and clinicians involved in a pilot trial.门诊普通外科手术后无阿片类药物镇痛：一项聚焦于参与试点试验的患者和临床医生观点的定性研究。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Mar;37(3):2269-2280. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09472-8. Epub 2022 Aug 2.

本文引用的文献

1
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews.随机对照试验中结局报告偏倚对一系列系统评价的影响。
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365.
2
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.不同干预措施和结局的对照试验中治疗效果估计偏差的实证证据：Meta流行病学研究
BMJ. 2008 Mar 15;336(7644):601-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD. Epub 2008 Mar 3.
3
Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review.评估药物治疗的随机对照试验报告中的盲法：一项系统综述。
PLoS Med. 2006 Oct;3(10):e425. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030425.
4
Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis.随机分组后的排除标准：意向性分析原则及将患者排除在分析之外。
BMJ. 2002 Sep 21;325(7365):652-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652.
5
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.偏倚的实证证据。与对照试验中治疗效果估计相关的方法学质量维度。
JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.

Risk of bias: why measure it, and how?

作者信息

Phillips Mark R, Kaiser Peter, Thabane Lehana, Bhandari Mohit, Chaudhary Varun

机构信息

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

Eye (Lond). 2022 Feb;36(2):346-348. doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01759-9. Epub 2021 Sep 30.

DOI:10.1038/s41433-021-01759-9
PMID:34594009
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807607/
Abstract
摘要