Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Ten resources for understanding bias in health research: EBM live workshop 2022
  1. David Nunan1,
  2. Kainat Bashir2,
  3. Krish Bilimoria3,
  4. Jasminder Birdi4,
  5. Fiona Campbell5,
  6. Rachel Dean6,
  7. Matthew B Downer7,
  8. Gabriel Gonçalves Costa8,
  9. Melanie M Golob9,
  10. Angille Heintzman10,
  11. Mark Steven Howe11,
  12. Sathya Karunananthan12,
  13. Karishma Krishna Kurup13,
  14. Andrea Leinberger-Jabari9,14,
  15. Yan Luo15,
  16. Nonsikelelo Mathe16,
  17. Red Thaddeus D Miguel17,
  18. Richard L Morrow18,
  19. Caroline Scobie19,
  20. Victoria South20,
  21. Jenny Stavisky19,
  22. Uday Narayan Yadav21
  1. 1 Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. 2 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3 Department of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto, Ontario, UK
  4. 4 Elms Medical Practice, Rochester, UK
  5. 5 Population Health Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  6. 6 School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  7. 7 Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  8. 8 Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  9. 9 Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  10. 10 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  11. 11 Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
  12. 12 Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  13. 13 Centre for Universal Health, Chatham House, London, UK
  14. 14 Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE
  15. 15 Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Faculty of Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  16. 16 Physician Learning Program, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  17. 17 Thera-Business Inc, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
  18. 18 Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  19. 19 VetPartners, York, UK
  20. 20 Liphook Equine Hospital, Liphook, UK
  21. 21 National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Nunan, Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3AZ, UK; david.nunan{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


Previous articles introduced resources for practising1 and teaching2 evidence-based medicine (EBM) and healthcare (EBHC). In an in-person workshop at the 2022 EBM live conference in Oxford, participants were invited to consider resources on bias in health research, contribute to a database of such studies and disseminate their learning. This paper shares insights from the workshop.

Resource selection process

The resource selection process is outlined in figure 1. Briefly, participants (n=25), in small groups, were given time to list and discuss resources they deemed useful for understanding bias in health research. Each resource was accompanied by its details and reasons for inclusion. The groups then selected their top three resources and finally, their top resource for this manuscript. Little information was provided before the workshop as to its nature so as to deliberately ensure the challenge of participants having to recall, find and discuss relevant articles, texts and examples. A real-time Google spreadsheet served as a database of resources. Due to time constraints, most groups could not provide a synopsis of their resources during the workshop; hence, it was done later.

Figure 1

Resource selection process.

While acknowledging the potential for exclusion of relevant articles, the consensus was that if, out of a group of 25 or so EBHC enthusiasts, a specific resource from one of the authors in the workshop was not mentioned then it …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @dnunan79, @gabrielgcnut, @yluo06, @InsideTrials

  • Contributors DN conceived the idea for the manuscript and led the development and write up. DN, KBashir, KBilimoria, JB, FC, RD, MBD, GGC, MMG, AH, MSH, SK, KKK, AL-J, YL, NM, RTDM, RLM, CS, VS, JS and UNY contributed to the selection of included papers, manuscript write up and agreed upon the final submitted version of the manuscript. DN acts as guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this article represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of their host institutions or any organisations they may be affiliated with or have received funding from.

  • Competing interests DN has received expenses and fees for his media work. He holds grant funding from the NIHR School of Primary Care Research and the Royal College of General Practitioners. On occasion, he receives expenses for teaching EBM. He is an associate editor at the BMJ Evidence Based Medicine journal. None to declare: KBashir, FC, MBD, KBilimoria, JB, GGC, RD, MMG, AH, MSH, AL-J, KKK, SK, RLM, RTDM and VS.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.