Allegiance bias

Last updated

Allegiance bias (or allegiance effect) in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific party or school of thought. [1] [2] [3] Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. [4] Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias.  Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating. [2] Furthermore, the allegiance bias in forensic context can be explained by the reality of being hired from a specific party. Wether an expert witness is hired by the prosecution or defense, has an effect on their judgement of the case, for example how guilty they perceive the accused to be. [5]

Contents

History

“Therapeutic allegiance of the experimenter was first used by Luborsky Singer, and Luborsky" in a journal article published in 1975. [4] The basis of their study looked for comparisons among some psychotherapy practices. They found that patients fared better when combined treatments of therapies were used versus only one treatment applied. They found the strongest allegiance are those therapists who are the authors of new implemented practices or supervise others in a practice. They will tend to use their treatment more often.

Psychotherapy

Some reasons why this is occurs in psychotherapy is that there are many new therapies being implemented and researched. Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others." [6]

Forensic psychology

Most often forensic experts indulge in having formed a biased opinion of the assessment in favor of the party retaining their services as opposed to having it objective by means of the evidence available. Some studies have been conducted evaluating biases in legal cases.  They observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a particular party or attorney, because they have a preexisting attitude “in favor of capital punishment and would be more favorable to accept capital case referrals from particular adversarial parties.” That they may have a partial preexisting allegiance to certain legal cases that favor their opinions. These biases can disrupt justice in legal cases which can be dangerous to our society. [7] The American Psychological Association knows the effects of biases and have prepared guidelines for these preexisting attitudes and biases to help forensic psychologists to be objective when choosing court cases. [8] A study by Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020) tried an intervention to reduce the bias by falsified instructions. Participants were given a case file and a letter by either the prosecution or defense. They were told to critically think about both sides. The effect was not significant. The participants were as much influenced by their party, as when they didn't have instructions. The effect size of the bias is medium. Until interventions to reduce the allegiance bias in forensic contexts are found, the authors highlight the importance of cross examinations. [9] A further study by McAuliff, B. and Arter, J. (2016) examined the phenomenon of allegiance bias in cases of child sexual abuse. In an online study, experts were assigned to one of two parties: either prosecution or defense. They were then presented with one of two versions of a video depicting a police interview with a 4-year-old girl. The videos differed in the suggestibility of the interview. The tasks included evaluating the interview, the child’s testimony, and answering follow-up questions regarding their ability to testify as experts and the specific aspects of the interview they would focus on in their testimony. The observed effects were significant: experts were more likely to support the prosecution’s case when the interview’s suggestibility was low, and conversely, they were more likely to support the defense when suggestibility was high. The researchers emphasized that opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and, in extreme cases, even the threat of prosecution could help mitigate the allegiance bias. [10]

Analyses

Another area that allegiance bias is found is when authors/researchers are critiquing each other's work. Some studies make claims that a previous article confirmed bias and so on. It is important to analyze these authors, who are making these claims, on how they are coming to their conclusion. These authors may be also demonstrating allegiance bias by testing previous articles to their own work and overexerting the conclusion they have found. These authors are ironically using allegiance bias to verify their work as being correct. [11]

Critiques

[12]

Despite the fact that researchers find the outcomes of psychological evaluations to be influenced from allegiance from a specific school of thought, the role of allegiance in the research field should be evaluated cautiously. Several meta-analyses have shown contradictory results between experimenter's allegiance (EA) and assessment effect sizes in favor of the preferred conclusions. [6] These are meta-analysis that examines a combination of psychotherapy and non-psychotherapy treatments (e.g., medication) if it was directly compared with another type of psychotherapy or meta-analysis evaluating direct comparisons between different types of psychotherapy. Meta-analysis assessing non-verbal techniques, web-based treatments and non-specific or miscellaneous treatments (e.g., yoga, dietary advice, recreation, biofeedback, etc.) should also be excluded. [6]

Sensitivity

The analysis on direct comparisons did not address the quality of studies and neither did it have any significant association between allegiant and non-allegiant studies; whereas significant differences were observed in cases where treatment integrity was not evaluated. [13]

[14] [15] [16]

In legal cases, evaluator attitudes and other attributes may systematically influence from whom evaluators are willing to accept a referral. Filtering and selection effects in adversarial settings have been assumed to exist, but with few empirical tests of the hypothesis to date. [17] [18] Current studies demonstrate that these experts have preexisting biases that may affect for whom they are willing to work in the adversarial system–thus, likely amplifying the effects of the system-induced biases when layered with preexisting expert biases.

Rating

[19]

Remedies

Objective methods

Disclosures

Reporting policies

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. [23]

QUOROM

Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. [24]

PRISMA

Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of evaluations of health care interventions. [25] [26]

The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, they have explained the meaning and rationale for each checklist item & have include an example of good reporting, while also where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. [27]

Conflict of interest

[28] [29]

[30] [31] [32] [33] [11]

Assessment

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognitive behavioral therapy</span> Type of therapy to improve mental health

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy that aims to reduce symptoms of various mental health conditions, primarily depression, PTSD and anxiety disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy focuses on challenging and changing cognitive distortions and their associated behaviors to improve emotional regulation and develop personal coping strategies that target solving current problems. Though it was originally designed as an approach to treat depression, CBT is often prescribed for the evidence-informed treatment of many mental health and other conditions, including anxiety, substance use disorders, marital problems, ADHD, and eating disorders. CBT includes a number of cognitive or behavioral psychotherapies that treat defined psychopathologies using evidence-based techniques and strategies.

Psychotherapy is the use of psychological methods, particularly when based on regular personal interaction, to help a person change behavior, increase happiness, and overcome problems. Psychotherapy aims to improve an individual's well-being and mental health, to resolve or mitigate troublesome behaviors, beliefs, compulsions, thoughts, or emotions, and to improve relationships and social skills. Numerous types of psychotherapy have been designed either for individual adults, families, or children and adolescents. Some types of psychotherapy are considered evidence-based for treating diagnosed mental disorders; other types have been criticized as pseudoscience.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meta-analysis</span> Statistical method that summarizes and/or integrates data from multiple sources

Meta-analysis is a method of synthesis of quantitative data from multiple independent studies addressing a common research question. An important part of this method involves computing a combined effect size across all of the studies. As such, this statistical approach involves extracting effect sizes and variance measures from various studies. By combining these effect sizes the statistical power is improved and can resolve uncertainties or discrepancies found in individual studies. Meta-analyses are integral in supporting research grant proposals, shaping treatment guidelines, and influencing health policies. They are also pivotal in summarizing existing research to guide future studies, thereby cementing their role as a fundamental methodology in metascience. Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

In published academic research, publication bias occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research study biases the decision to publish or otherwise distribute it. Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings in favor of positive results. The study of publication bias is an important topic in metascience.

Criminal psychology, also referred to as criminological psychology, is the study of the views, thoughts, intentions, actions and reactions of criminals and suspects. It is a subfield of criminology and applied psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emotional Freedom Techniques</span> Form of pseudoscientific counseling intervention

Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a technique that stimulates acupressure points by pressuring, tapping or rubbing while focusing on situations that represent personal fear or trauma. EFT draws on various theories of alternative medicine – including acupuncture, neuro-linguistic programming, energy medicine, and Thought Field Therapy (TFT). EFT also combines elements of exposure therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and somatic stimulation. It is best known through Gary Craig's EFT Handbook, published in the late 1990s, and related books and workshops by a variety of teachers. EFT and similar techniques are often discussed under the umbrella term "energy psychology."

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy that is a recommended treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but remains controversial within the psychological community. It was devised by Francine Shapiro in 1987 and originally designed to alleviate the distress associated with traumatic memories such as PTSD.

Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) is a form of psychological therapy initially developed in the United Kingdom by Anthony Ryle. This time-limited therapy was developed in the context of the UK's National Health Service with the aim of providing effective and affordable psychological treatment which could be realistically provided in a resource constrained public health system. It is distinctive due to its intensive use of reformulation, its integration of cognitive and analytic practice and its collaborative nature, involving the patient very actively in their treatment.

Psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalytic psychotherapy are two categories of psychological therapies. Their main purpose is revealing the unconscious content of a client's psyche in an effort to alleviate psychic tension, which is inner conflict within the mind that was created in a situation of extreme stress or emotional hardship, often in the state of distress. The terms "psychoanalytic psychotherapy" and "psychodynamic psychotherapy" are often used interchangeably, but a distinction can be made in practice: though psychodynamic psychotherapy largely relies on psychoanalytical theory, it employs substantially shorter treatment periods than traditional psychoanalytical therapies. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is evidence-based; the effectiveness of psychoanalysis and its relationship to facts is disputed.

The Dodo bird verdict is a controversial topic in psychotherapy, referring to the claim that all empirically validated psychotherapies, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes. It is named after the Dodo character in Alice in Wonderland. The conjecture was introduced by Saul Rosenzweig in 1936, drawing on imagery from Lewis Carroll's novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but only came into prominence with the emergence of new research evidence in the 1970s.

Acceptance and commitment therapy is a form of psychotherapy, as well as a branch of clinical behavior analysis. It is an empirically-based psychological intervention that uses acceptance and mindfulness strategies along with commitment and behavior-change strategies to increase psychological flexibility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Funnel plot</span> Type of graph used in research

A funnel plot is a graph designed to check for the existence of publication bias; funnel plots are commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In the absence of publication bias, it assumes that studies with high precision will be plotted near the average, and studies with low precision will be spread evenly on both sides of the average, creating a roughly funnel-shaped distribution. Deviation from this shape can indicate publication bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ioannidis</span> Greek-American scientist (born 1965)

John P. A. Ioannidis is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself - in other words, meta-research - primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</span> Scientific reporting standard

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete reporting of this type of research. The PRISMA standard superseded the earlier QUOROM standard. It offers the replicability of a systematic literature review. Researchers have to figure out research objectives that answer the research question, states the keywords, a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. In the review stage, relevant articles were searched, irrelevant ones are removed. Articles are analyzed according to some pre-defined categories.

Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT) is a system of psychotherapy developed by Professor Paul Gilbert (OBE) that integrates techniques from cognitive behavioral therapy with concepts from evolutionary psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, Buddhist psychology, and neuroscience. According to Gilbert, "One of its key concerns is to use compassionate mind training to help people develop and work with experiences of inner warmth, safeness and soothing, via compassion and self-compassion."

Metacognitive training (MCT) is an approach for treating the symptoms of psychosis in schizophrenia, especially delusions, which has been adapted for other disorders such as depression, obsessive–compulsive disorder and borderline over the years. It was developed by Steffen Moritz and Todd Woodward. The intervention is based on the theoretical principles of cognitive behavioral therapy, but focuses in particular on problematic thinking styles that are associated with the development and maintenance of positive symptoms, e.g. overconfidence in errors and jumping to conclusions. Metacognitive training exists as a group training (MCT) and as an individualized intervention (MCT+).

References

  1. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T. (2015-11-03). "Adversarial Allegiance among Expert Witnesses". Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 11: 37–55. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714 . ISSN   1550-3585.
  2. 1 2 Wilson, G. Terence; Wilfley, Denise E.; Agras, W. Stewart; Bryson, Susan W. (2017-03-31). "Allegiance Bias and Therapist Effects: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Binge Eating Disorder". Clinical Psychology. 18 (2): 119–125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01243.x. ISSN   0969-5893. PMC   4118818 . PMID   25089079.
  3. ↑ Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-05-30). "Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal". BMJ Open. 5 (6): e007206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007206. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   4458582 . PMID   26033943.
  4. 1 2 Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN   1468-2850.
  5. ↑ Sauerland, Melanie; Otgaar, Henry; Maegherman, Enide; Sagana, Anna (July 2020). "Allegiance Bias in Statement Reliability Evaluations Is Not Eliminated by Falsification Instructions". Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 228 (3): 210–215. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000416. ISSN   2190-8370.
  6. 1 2 3 Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Fountoulakis, Konstantinos N.; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-09-15). "A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy". Annals of General Psychiatry. 14 (1): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12991-015-0063-1 . ISSN   1744-859X. PMC   4570291 . PMID   26379758.
  7. ↑ Gianni Pirelli; Patricia A. Zapf (2008-04-16). "An Investigation of Psychologists' Practices and Attitudes toward Participation in Capital Evaluations". Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 8 (1): 39–66. doi:10.1080/15228930801947294. ISSN   1522-8932. S2CID   144255691.
  8. ↑ "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". apadivisions.org. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  9. ↑ Sauerland, Melanie; Otgaar, Henry; Maegherman, Enide; Sagana, Anna (July 2020). "Allegiance Bias in Statement Reliability Evaluations Is Not Eliminated by Falsification Instructions". Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 228 (3): 210–215. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000416. ISSN   2190-8370.
  10. ↑ McAuliff, Bradley D.; Arter, Jeana L. (October 2016). "Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand". Law and Human Behavior. 40 (5): 524–535. doi:10.1037/lhb0000198. ISSN   1573-661X. PMC   5036989 . PMID   27243362.
  11. 1 2 Lieb, Klaus; von der Osten-Sacken, Jan; Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta; Reiss, Neele; Barth, Jürgen (2016-04-26). "Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review". BMJ Open. 6 (4): e010606. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   4853969 . PMID   27118287.
  12. ↑ Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009-03-01). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN   1468-2850.
  13. ↑ Weisz, John R.; Jensen-Doss, Amanda; Hawley, Kristin M. (2006). "Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons". American Psychologist. 61 (7): 671–689. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.515.3764 . doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.671. PMID   17032068.
  14. ↑ Wampold, Bruce E.; Budge, Stephanie L.; Laska, Kevin M.; Del Re, A. C.; Baardseth, Timothy P.; Fluckiger, Christoph; Minami, Takuya; Kivlighan, D. Martin; Gunn, Wade (2011-12-01). "Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons". Clinical Psychology Review. 31 (8): 1304–1312. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.012. ISSN   1873-7811. PMID   21996291.
  15. ↑ Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN   1050-3307. PMID   21797736. S2CID   205711756.
  16. ↑ Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN   1468-4381. PMID   21797736. S2CID   205711756.
  17. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-10-01). "Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. ISSN   1467-9280. PMID   23969777. S2CID   46521726.
  18. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-08-22). "Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. PMID   23969777. S2CID   46521726.
  19. ↑ Gaffan, E. A.; Tsaousis, I.; Kemp-Wheeler, S. M. (1995-12-01). "Researcher allegiance and meta-analysis: the case of cognitive therapy for depression". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 63 (6): 966–980. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.6.966. ISSN   0022-006X. PMID   8543719.
  20. ↑ "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". APA Div. 41: American Psychology-Law Society. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  21. ↑ Robinson, L. A.; Berman, J. S.; Neimeyer, R. A. (1990-07-01). "Psychotherapy for the treatment of depression: a comprehensive review of controlled outcome research". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.1.30. ISSN   0033-2909. PMID   2200072.
  22. ↑ Imel, Zac E.; Wampold, Bruce E.; Miller, Scott D.; Fleming, Reg R. (2008-12-01). "Distinctions without a difference: direct comparisons of psychotherapies for alcohol use disorders". Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 22 (4): 533–543. doi:10.1037/a0013171. ISSN   0893-164X. PMID   19071978.
  23. ↑ Moher, David; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Tricco, Andrea C.; Sampson, Margaret; Altman, Douglas G. (2007-03-27). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. 4 (3): e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 . ISSN   1549-1676. PMC   1831728 . PMID   17388659.
  24. ↑ Moher, D.; Cook, D. J.; Eastwood, S.; Olkin, I.; Rennie, D.; Stroup, D. F. (1999-11-27). "Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses". Lancet. 354 (9193): 1896–1900. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5. ISSN   0140-6736. PMID   10584742. S2CID   21826935.
  25. ↑ Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi (2008-08-01). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. ISSN   0895-4356. PMID   18411041.
  26. ↑ Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi; Tian, Wei (2008). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. PMID   18411041.
  27. ↑ Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Ioannidis, John P A; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P J; Kleijnen, Jos (2009-07-21). "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration". The BMJ. 339 (jul21 1): b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700. ISSN   0959-8138. PMC   2714672 . PMID   19622552.
  28. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. (2009-01-01). "The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine". Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 103 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.021. ISSN   1865-9217. PMID   19554887. S2CID   7219269.
  29. ↑ Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (2009-01-01). Lo, Bernard; Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). ISBN   9780309131889. PMID   20662118.
  30. ↑ Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361 . ISSN   0007-1250. PMID   18669986.
  31. ↑ Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361 . ISSN   0007-1250. PMID   18669986.
  32. ↑ Roseman, Michelle; Milette, Katherine; Bero, Lisa A.; Coyne, James C.; Lexchin, Joel; Turner, Erick H.; Thombs, Brett D. (2011-03-09). "Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl: 11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797 . ISSN   1538-3598. PMID   21386079. S2CID   11270323.
  33. ↑ Roseman, Michelle (2011-03-09). "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–17. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl: 11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797 . ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   21386079. S2CID   11270323.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.