Reading list

Current reading list (March 2019)

We have been keeping an eye on the methods literature, and think people with an interest in the Bias Methods Group may be interested in the following aticles published recently:

Anthon CT, Granholm A, Perner A, et al. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;113:189-99.


Atal I, Porcher R, Boutron I, et al. The statistical significance of meta-analyses is frequently fragile: definition of a fragility index for meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;111:32-40.


Berber S, Tan-Koay AG, Opiyo N, et al. A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;113:86-91.


Boutron I, Haneef R, Yavchitz A, et al. Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit. BMC Medicine 2019;17(1):105.


Chartres N, Fabbri A, McDonald S, et al. Association of industry ties with outcomes of studies examining the effect of wholegrain foods on cardiovascular disease and mortality: systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ Open 2019;9(5):e022912.


Croitoru DO, Huang Y, Kurdina A, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals. British Journal of Dermatology 2019; doi: 10.1111/bjd.18528.


Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019;10:Ed000142.


Farrah K, Young K, Tunis MC, et al. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols. Systematic Reviews 2019;8(1):280.


Gagnier JJ, Johnston BC. Poor quality patient reported outcome measures bias effect estimates in orthopaedic randomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;116:36-38.


Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019;8:Mr000047.


Lopez-Lopez JA, Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT. Selection bias introduced by informative censoring in studies examining effects of vaccination in infancy. International Journal of Epidemiology 2019.


Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Ƙstengaard L, et al. Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.005.


Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC, et al. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;109:30-41.


Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2020;118:60-68.


Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.


Tan AC, Jiang I, Askie L, et al. Prevalence of trial registration varies by study characteristics and risk of bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2019;113:64-74.

Former reading lists

The March 2019 reading list can be found here.

The August 2018 reading list can be found here.

The February 2018 reading list can be found here.