IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk of bias and confounding of observational studies of Zika virus infection: A scoping review of research protocols

Author

Listed:
  • Ludovic Reveiz
  • Michelle M Haby
  • Ruth Martínez-Vega
  • Carlos E Pinzón-Flores
  • Vanessa Elias
  • Emma Smith
  • Mariona Pinart
  • Nathalie Broutet
  • Francisco Becerra-Posada
  • Sylvain Aldighieri
  • Maria D Van Kerkhove

Abstract

Introduction: Given the severity and impact of the current Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak in the Americas, numerous countries have rushed to develop research studies to assess ZIKV and its potential health consequences. In an effort to ensure that studies are comprehensive, both internally and externally valid, and with reliable results, the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization, Institut Pasteur, the networks of Fiocruz, the Consortia for the Standardization of Influenza Seroepidemiology (CONSISE) and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) have generated six standardized clinical and epidemiological research protocols and questionnaires to address key public health questions on ZIKV. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of ongoing study protocols related to ZIKV research. We analyzed the content of protocols of 32 cohort studies and 13 case control studies for systematic bias that could produce erroneous results. Additionally we aimed to characterize the risks of bias and confounding in observational studies related to ZIKV and to propose ways to minimize them, including the use of six newly standardized research protocols. Results: Observational studies of ZIKV face an array of challenges, including measurement of exposure and outcomes (microcephaly and Guillain-Barré Syndrome). Potential confounders need to be measured where known and controlled for in the analysis. Selection bias due to non-random selection is a significant issue, particularly in the case-control design, and losses to follow-up is equally important for the cohort design. Conclusion: Observational research seeking to answer key questions on the ZIKV should consider these restrictions and take precautions to minimize bias in an effort to provide reliable and valid results. Utilization of the standardized research protocols developed by the WHO, PAHO, Institut Pasteur, and CONSISE will harmonize the key methodological aspects of each study design to minimize bias at different stages of the study. Biases need to be considered by researchers implementing the standardized protocols as well as by users of observational epidemiological studies of ZIKV.

Suggested Citation

  • Ludovic Reveiz & Michelle M Haby & Ruth Martínez-Vega & Carlos E Pinzón-Flores & Vanessa Elias & Emma Smith & Mariona Pinart & Nathalie Broutet & Francisco Becerra-Posada & Sylvain Aldighieri & Maria , 2017. "Risk of bias and confounding of observational studies of Zika virus infection: A scoping review of research protocols," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180220
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180220
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180220&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180220?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.