Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35025022›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2022

Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: challenges and potential solutions.

Jessie R Baldwin, Jean-Baptiste Pingault, Tabea Schoeler, Hannah M Sallis, Marcus R Munafò

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Australian neonatal nurses' professional quality of life: A descriptive cross-sectional study.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Navigating Ambiguity and Uncertainty in End-of-Life Care Research Practice.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessie R BaldwinDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, WC1H 0AP, UK. j.baldwin@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5703-5058
Jean-Baptiste PingaultDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Tabea SchoelerDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Hannah M SallisMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Marcus R MunafòMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/7MRF MRF-160-0002-ELP-PINGAWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215917/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of secondary data sources (such as cohort studies, survey data, and administrative records) has the potential to provide answers to science and society's most pressing questions. However, researcher biases can lead to questionable research practices in secondary data analysis, which can distort the evidence base. While pre-registration can help to protect against researcher biases, it presents challenges for secondary data analysis. In this article, we describe these challenges and propose novel solutions and alternative approaches. Proposed solutions include approaches to (1) address bias linked to prior knowledge of the data, (2) enable pre-registration of non-hypothesis-driven research, (3) help ensure that pre-registered analyses will be appropriate for the data, and (4) address difficulties arising from reduced analytic flexibility in pre-registration. For each solution, we provide guidance on implementation for researchers and data guardians. The adoption of these practices can help to protect against researcher bias in secondary data analysis, to improve the robustness of research based on existing data.

Indexed as

BiasCohort StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesOpen sciencePre-registrationResearcher biasSecondary data analysis

Identifiers

PMID35025022
PMCPMC8791887

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.