Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) measures study errors in terms of direction, magnitude and uncertainty. This systematic review aimed to describe how QBA has been applied in epidemiological research in 2006-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed for English peer-reviewed studies applying QBA to real-data applications. We also included studies citing selected sources or which were identified in a previous QBA review in pharmacoepidemiology. For each study, we extracted the rationale, methodology, bias-adjusted results and interpretation and assessed factors associated with reproducibility. RESULTS: Of the 238 studies, the majority were embedded within papers whose main inferences were drawn from conventional approaches as secondary (sensitivity) analyses to quantity-specific biases (52%) or to assess the extent of bias required to shift the point estimate to the null (25%); 10% were standalone papers. The most common approach was probabilistic (57%). Misclassification was modelled in 57%, uncontrolled confounder(s) in 40% and selection bias in 17%. Most did not consider multiple biases or correlations between errors. When specified, bias parameters came from the literature (48%) more often than internal validation studies (29%). The majority (60%) of analyses resulted in >10% change from the conventional point estimate; however, most investigators (63%) did not alter their original interpretation. Degree of reproducibility related to inclusion of code, formulas, sensitivity analyses and supplementary materials, as well as the QBA rationale. CONCLUSIONS: QBA applications were rare though increased over time. Future investigators should reference good practices and include details to promote transparency and to serve as a reference for other researchers.
Petersen et al. (Sat,) studied this question.