Latest & greatest articles for Screening Bias

The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on Screening Bias or other clinical topics then use Trip today.

This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on Screening Bias and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.

What is Trip?

Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.

Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.

As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.

For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for Screening Bias

1. Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review. (PubMed)

Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review. To investigate the proportion of original studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression that appropriately exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression and to determine whether (...) these systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluate possible bias from the inclusion of such patients.Systematic review.Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, ISI, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1 January 2005 to 29 October 2009.Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in any language that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression.Only eight of 197 (4%) unique publications from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically excluded patients who already had

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2011 BMJ

2. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. (PubMed)

Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. The sensitivity and specificity of a screening test are biased when disease status is not verified in all subjects and when the likelihood of confirmation depends on the test result itself. We assessed the screening characteristics of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement after correction for verification bias.Between 1995 and 2001, 6691 men underwent PSA-based screening (...) for prostate cancer. Of these men, 705 (11 percent) subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate. Under the assumption that the chance of undergoing a biopsy depends only on the PSA-test result and other observed clinical variables, we used a mathematical model to estimate adjusted receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves.Adjusting for verification bias significantly increased the area under the ROC curve (i.e., the overall diagnostic performance) of the PSA test, as compared with an unadjusted

2003 NEJM