Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 8 - Bias in systematic reviews: considerations when updating your knowledge

    • By Harald Herkner, Editor Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group, Specialist Internal Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, Cochrane Anaesthesia Group, Department of Emergency Medicine, Vienna General Hospital/Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel, Vienna, Austria
  • Edited by Ann Møller, KAS Herlev, Copenhagen, Tom Pedersen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
    Published online:
    05 September 2009
    Print publication:
    09 October 2006, pp 61-76

  • Summary

    This chapter is divided into two sections: bias within single studies and bias between studies in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews aim at avoiding many of the biases contained in traditional narrative reviews, but nevertheless there is still potential for numerous biases even in elaborate systematic reviews. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the potentially most unbiased form of clinical epidemiological study designs if conducted appropriately. There are currently two methods to assess study quality: composite scales and the component approach. There are several methods to detect publication bias, including simple graphical and more complex statistical methods. There is empirical evidence that studies with significant results are published or cited earlier and more frequently than those with non-significant or unfavourable results. Limited evidence exists for outcome reporting bias, duplicate publication bias, language bias and database bias.