detection bias

detection bias

[ditek′shən]
a potential artifact in epidemiological data caused by the use of a particular diagnostic technique or type of equipment. As an example, cancer rates may vary in different regions or periods, not because of an actual difference in the incidence of the disease but because of different diagnostic technologies.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Two other studies were judged to have a high risk of detection bias, because people assessing outcomes were aware of the interventions to which participants were allocated.
This tool assesses risk of bias within the following domains: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias.
The authors urged caution in interpreting the findings because of high or unclear risk of selection bias, detection bias, and attrition bias, and too little information was available for the authors to conduct subgroup analyses.
Such methodology would help clarify any age differences as they pertain to a negative or positive emotion detection bias.
Detection bias due to the effect of finasteride on prostate volume: a modeling approach for analysis of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.
Of importance, in our study, neither short-term use of metformin or sulfonylureas, nor insulin was associ ated with altered relative risk estimates for pancreatic cancer, indicating that our study design effectively elim inated detection bias and/or bias by intensification of antidiabetic therapy due to undiagnosed pancreatic cancer," they said.
s (2007) contention of the importance of incorporating song availability for reducing detection bias in estimating bird abundance.
Evaluators were blinded at baseline and post-intervention assessments, minimising the introduction of detection bias.
The likelihood of such detection bias is unclear, although a similar difference between recorded cases and recorded subcounties infected preceded the epidemic increase in 1976 (Figure 3).
This may have resulted in a detection bias in the HRT users, particularly of acute myocardial infarction which can be undetected at the time of occurrence in 22-44% of cases.
The magnitude of the excess, however, must be interpreted cautiously because of the potential for detection bias.
Due to both researchers and patients being aware of the therapeutic interventions for the subjective outcome measures, the potential performance bias and detection bias may be generated.

Full browser ?