Toward a Clarification of the Taxonomy of "Bias" in Epidemiology Textbooks. Issue 2 (March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schwartz, Sharon; Campbell, Ulka B.; Gatto, Nicolle M.; Gordon, Kirsha
• Is Part Of: Epidemiology. Volume 26:Issue 2(2015:Mar.)
• Publication Date: 2015-03
• Subjects: Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 614.405
• DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000224
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1044-3983

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec> <p>Epidemiology textbooks typically divide biases into 3 general categories—confounding, selection bias, and information bias. Despite the ubiquity of this categorization, authors often use these terms to mean different things. This hinders communication among epidemiologists and confuses students who are just learning about the field. To understand the sources of this problem, we reviewed current general epidemiology textbooks to examine how the authors defined and categorized biases. We found that much of the confusion arises from different definitions of "validity" and from a mixing of 3 overlapping organizational features in defining and differentiating among confounding, selection bias, and information bias: consequence, the result of the problem; cause, the processes that give rise to the problem; and cure, how these biases can be addressed once they occur. By contrast, a consistent taxonomy would provide (1) a clear and consistent definition of what unites confounding, selection bias, and information bias and (2) a clear articulation and consistent application of the feature that distinguishes these categories. Based on a distillation of these textbook discussions, we provide an example of a taxonomy that we think meets these criteria.</p> </sec> </abstract>