Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Quality versus Risk-of-Bias assessment in clinical research

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Furuya-Kanamori, Luis
Xu, Chang
Hasan, Syed Shahzad
Doi, Suhail A R

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Pergamon-Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Assessment of internal validity safeguards implemented by researchers has been used to examine the potential reliability of evidence generated within a study. These safeguards protect against systematic error, and such an assessment has traditionally been called a quality assessment. When the results of a quality assessment are translated through some empirical construct to the potential risk of bias, this has been termed a risk of bias assessment. The latter has gained popularity and is commonly used interchangeably with the term quality assessment. This key concept paper clarifies the differences between these assessments and how they may be used and interpreted when assessing clinical evidence for internal validity.

Description

Citation

Source

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

Open Access

License Rights

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Restricted until