RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731314
Impact of Bias in Data Collection of COVID-19 Cases
Funding The infrastructure of the Government of NCT of Delhi, India, was used in the conduct of this study. No special funding was provided.
Abstract
Background Prognostic factor research (PFR), prevalence of symptoms and likelihood ratio (LR) play an important role in identifying prescribing indications of useful homeopathic remedies. It involves meticulous unbiased collection and analysis of data collected during clinical practice. This paper is an attempt to identify causes of bias and suggests ways to mitigate them for improving the accuracy in prescribing for better clinical outcomes and execution of randomized controlled studies.
Methods A prospective, open label, observational study was performed from April 2020 to December 2020 at two COVID Health Centers. A custom-made Excel spreadsheet containing 71 fields covering a spectrum of COVID-19 symptoms was shared with doctors for regular reporting. Cases suitable for PFR were selected. LR was calculated for commonly occurring symptoms. Outlier values with LR ≥5 were identified and variance of LRs was calculated.
Results Out of 1,889 treated cases of confirmed COVID-19, 1,445 cases were selected for pre-specified reasons. Nine medicines, Arsenicum album, Bryonia alba, Gelsemium sempervirens, Pulsatilla nigricans, Hepar sulphuricus, Magnesia muriaticum, Phosphorus, Nux vomica and Belladonna, were most frequently prescribed. Outlier values and large variance for Hepar sulphuricus and Magnesia muriaticum were noticed as indication of bias. Confirmation bias leading to lowering of symptom threshold, keynote prescribing, and deficiency in checking of all symptoms in each case were identified as the most important sources of bias.
Conclusion Careful identification of biases and remedial steps such as training of doctors, regular monitoring of data, checking of all pre-defined symptoms, and multicenter data collection are important steps to mitigate biases.
Keywords
COVID-19 - homeopathy - prognostic factor research - likelihood ratio - confirmation bias - keynote prescribingPublikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 23. Februar 2021
Angenommen: 15. April 2021
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. September 2021
© 2021. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Guo YR, Cao QD, Hong ZS. et al. The origin, transmission and clinical therapies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak—an update on the status. Mil Med Res 2020; 7: 11
- 2 Clinical Management Protocol, COVID-19.Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India Website. Accessed August 1, 2020 at https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/ClinicalManagementProtocolforCOVID19dated27062020.pdf
- 3 Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020; 323: 1239-1242
- 4 Ministry of AYUSH. Gazette of India, Notification No. L.11011/8/2020/AS. New Delhi: Government of India; ; April 21st, 2020
- 5 Priya R, Sujatha V. AYUSH for COVID-19: science or superstition?. Indian J Public Health 2020; 64: S105-S107
- 6 Jethani B, Gupta M, Wadhwani P. et al. Clinical characteristics and remedy profiles of patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Homeopathy 2021; 110: 86-93
- 7 Manchanda RK, Miglani A, Gupta M. et al. Homeopathic remedies in COVID-19: prognostic factor research. Homeopathy 2021; 110: 160-167
- 8 Marewski JN, Gigerenzer G. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2012; 14: 77-89
- 9 Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chron Dis 1979; 32: 51-63
- 10 Alexander LK, Lopes B, Ricchetti-Masterson K, Yeatts KB. Selection Bias. Eric Notebook; 2nd Edition. . Accessed March 26, 2021 at https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2015/07/nciph_ERIC13.pdf
- 11 Bucknor-Ferron P, Zagaja L. Five strategies to combat unconscious bias. Nursing 2016; 46: 61-62
- 12 Marcelin JR, Siraj DS, Victor R, Kotadia S, Maldonado YA. The impact of unconscious bias in healthcare: how to recognize and mitigate it. J Infect Dis 2019; 220: S62-S73
- 13 Hegedus EJ, Moody J. Clinimetrics corner: the many faces of selection bias. J Manual Manip Ther 2010; 18: 69-73
- 14 Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 1998; 2: 175-220
- 15 Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. 6th ed.. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2004: 267
- 16 Souter K. Heuristics and bias in homeopathy. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 237-244
- 17 Rutten L. Confirmation and confirmation bias: the role of prognostic factor research. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2017; 11: 262-268
- 18 Rutten L, Muraleedharan KC, Shinde VH. et al. What is a homoeopathic symptom, in daily practice and research?. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2017; 11: 11-20
- 19 Reilly D, Mercer SW, Bikker AP, Harrison T. Outcome related to impact on daily living: preliminary validation of the ORIDL instrument. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 139
- 20 Miglani A, Rutten L, Manchanda RK. Generalisability of prognostic factor research: further analysis of data from the IIPCOS2 study. Homeopathy 2017; 106: 155-159
- 21 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, Lugten RFG, Barthels RWJM. Statistical analysis of six repertory rubrics after prospective assessment applying Bayes' theorem. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 26-34
- 22 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19. Accessed February 1, 2021 at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/latest-evidence/clinical
- 23 Rutten L. Prognostic factor research in Homoeopathy. Indian J Res Homoeopathy 2016; 10: 59-65