Development of the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS)

Objective: Cognitive problems and biases play an important role in the development and continuation of psychosis. A self-report measure of these deficits and processes was developed (Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale: DACOBS) and is evaluated in this study. Methods: An item pool made by international experts was used to develop a self-report scale on a sample of 138 schizophrenia spectrum patients. Another sample of 71 patients was recruited to validate the subscales. A group of 186 normal control subjects was recruited to establish norms and examine discriminative validity. Results: Factor analyses resulted in seven factors, each with six items (jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility bias, attention for threat bias, external attribution bias, social cognition problems, subjective cognitive problems and safety behavior). All factors independently explained the variance (eigenvalues > 2) and total explained variance was 45%. Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha = .90; split-half reliability = .92; test–retest reliability = .86). The DACOBS discriminates between schizophrenia spectrum patients and normal control subjects. Validity was affirmed for five of seven subscales. The scale ‘Subjective Cognitive problems’ was not associated with objective cognitive functioning and ‘Social cognition problems’ was not associated with the Hinting task, but with the scale measuring ideas of social reference. Conclusions: The DACOBS scale, with seven independent subscales, is reliable and valid for use in clinical practice and research.

To look or not to look at threat? Scanpath differences within a group of spider phobics

Predicting the behavior of phobic patients in a confrontational situation is challenging. While avoidance as a major clinical component of phobias suggests that patients orient away from threat, findings based on cognitive paradigms indicate an attentional bias towards threat. Here we present eye movement data from 21 spider phobics and 21 control subjects, based on 3 basic oculomotor tasks and a visual exploration task that included close-up views of spiders. Relative to the control group, patients showed accelerated reflexive saccades in one of the basic oculomotor tasks, while the fear-relevant exploration task evoked a general slowing in their scanning behavior and pronounced oculomotor avoidance. However, this avoidance strongly varied within the patient group and was not associated with the scores from spider avoidance-sensitive questionnaire scales. We suggest that variation of oculomotor avoidance between phobics reflects different strategies of how they cope with threat in confrontational situations.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Brain systems underlying encounter expectancy bias in spider phobia.

Spider-phobic individuals are characterized by exaggerated expectancies to be faced with spiders (so-called encounter expectancy bias). Whereas phobic responses have been linked to brain systems mediating fear, little is known about how the recruitment of these systems relates to exaggerated expectancies of threat. We used fMRI to examine spider-phobic and control participants while they imagined visiting different locations in a forest after having received background information about the likelihood of encountering different animals (spiders, snakes, and birds) at these locations. Critically, imagined encounter expectancies modulated brain responses differently in phobics as compared with controls. Phobics displayed stronger negative modulation of activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and visual cortex by encounter expectancies for spiders, relative to snakes or birds (within-participants analysis); these effects were not seen in controls. Between-participants correlation analyses within the phobic group further corroborated the hypothesis that these phobia-specific modulations may underlie irrationality in encounter expectancies (deviations of encounter expectancies from objective background information) in spider phobia; the greater the negative modulation a phobic participant displayed in the lateral prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and visual cortex, the stronger was her bias in encounter expectancies for spiders. Interestingly, irrationality in expectancies reflected in frontal areas relied on right rather than left hemispheric deactivations. Our data accord with the idea that expectancy biases in spider phobia may reflect deficiencies in cognitive control and contextual integration that are mediated by right frontal and parietal areas.

'Alternate-goal bias' in antisaccades and the influence of expectation

Saccadic performance depends on the requirements of the current trial, but also may be influenced by other trials in the same experiment. This effect of trial context has been investigated most for saccadic error rate and reaction time but seldom for the positional accuracy of saccadic landing points. We investigated whether the direction of saccades towards one goal is affected by the location of a second goal used in other trials in the same experimental block. In our first experiment, landing points ('endpoints') of antisaccades but not prosaccades were shifted towards the location of the alternate goal. This spatial bias decreased with increasing angular separation between the current and alternative goals. In a second experiment, we explored whether expectancy about the goal location was responsible for the biasing of the saccadic endpoint. For this, we used a condition where the saccadic goal randomly changed from one trial to the next between locations on, above or below the horizontal meridian. We modulated the prior probability of the alternate-goal location by showing cues prior to stimulus onset. The results showed that expectation about the possible positions of the saccadic goal is sufficient to bias saccadic endpoints and can account for at least part of this phenomenon of 'alternate-goal bias'.

Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results). METHODS: The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables). RESULTS: A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).

Avoidance and inhibition do not predict nonrespondent bias among patients with inflammatory bowel disease

It has been suggested that participant withdrawal from studies can bias estimates. However, this is only possible when withdrawers and nonwithdrawers differ in an important way. We tested the hypothesis that withdrawers are more likely than nonwithdrawers to be avoidant and negatively affected.

Vertical bias in neglect: A question of time?

Neglect is defined as the failure to attend and to orient to the contralesional side of space. A horizontal bias towards the right visual field is a classical finding in patients who suffered from a right-hemispheric stroke. The vertical dimension of spatial attention orienting has only sparsely been investigated so far. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity of this vertical bias by means of a search task, which taps a more pronounced top-down attentional component. Eye movements and behavioural search performance were measured in thirteen patients with left-sided neglect after right hemispheric stroke and in thirteen age-matched controls. Concerning behavioural performance, patients found significantly less targets than healthy controls in both the upper and lower left quadrant. However, when targets were located in the lower left quadrant, patients needed more visual fixations (and therefore longer search time) to find them, suggesting a time-dependent vertical bias.

Reproducibility and day time bias correction of optoelectronic leg volumetry: a prospective cohort study

Background Leg edema is a common manifestation of various underlying pathologies. Reliable measurement tools are required to quantify edema and monitor therapeutic interventions. Aim of the present work was to investigate the reproducibility of optoelectronic leg volumetry over 3 weeks' time period and to eliminate daytime related within-individual variability. Methods Optoelectronic leg volumetry was performed in 63 hairdressers (mean age 45 ± 16 years, 85.7% female) in standing position twice within a minute for each leg and repeated after 3 weeks. Both lower leg (legBD) and whole limb (limbBF) volumetry were analysed. Reproducibility was expressed as analytical and within-individual coefficients of variance (CVA, CVW), and as intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Results A total of 492 leg volume measurements were analysed. Both legBD and limbBF volumetry were highly reproducible with CVA of 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively. Within-individual reproducibility of legBD and limbBF volumetry over a three weeks' period was high (CVW 1.3% for both; ICC 0.99 for both). At both visits, the second measurement revealed a significantly higher volume compared to the first measurement with a mean increase of 7.3 ml ± 14.1 (0.33% ± 0.58%) for legBD and 30.1 ml ± 48.5 ml (0.52% ± 0.79%) for limbBF volume. A significant linear correlation between absolute and relative leg volume differences and the difference of exact day time of measurement between the two study visits was found (P < .001). A therefore determined time-correction formula permitted further improvement of CVW. Conclusions Leg volume changes can be reliably assessed by optoelectronic leg volumetry at a single time point and over a 3 weeks' time period. However, volumetry results are biased by orthostatic and daytime-related volume changes. The bias for day-time related volume changes can be minimized by a time-correction formula.