ObjectiveWe aimed to demonstrate the use of quantitative bias analysis (QBA), which reveals the effects of systematic error, including confounding, misclassification and selection bias, on study results in epidemiological studies published in the period from 2010 to mid‐23.MethodThe articles identified through a keyword search using Pubmed and Scopus were included in the study. The articles obtained from this search were eliminated according to the exclusion criteria, and the articles in which QBA analysis was applied were included in the detailed evaluation.ResultsIt can be said that the application of QBA analysis has gradually increased over the 13‐year period. Accordingly, the number of articles in which simple is used as a method in QBA analysis is 9 (9.89%), the number of articles in which the multidimensional approach is used is 10 (10.99%), the number of articles in which the probabilistic approach is used is 60 (65.93%) and the number of articles in which the method is not specified is 12 (13.19%). The number of articles with misclassification bias model is 44 (48.35%), the number of articles with uncontrolled confounder(s) bias model is 32 (35.16%), the number of articles with selection bias model is 7 (7.69%) and the number of articles using more than one bias model is 8 (8.79%). Of the 49 (53.85%) articles in which the bias parameter source was specified, 19 (38.78%) used internal validation, 26 (53.06%) used external validation and 4 (8.16%) used educated guess, data constraints and hypothetical data. Probabilistic approach was used as a bias method in 60 (65.93%) of the articles, and mostly beta (8 [13.33%)], normal (9 [15.00%]) and uniform (8 [13.33%]) distributions were selected.ConclusionThe application of QBA is rare in the literature but is increasing over time. Future researchers should include detailed analyzes such as QBA analysis to obtain inferences with higher evidence value, taking into account systematic errors.
