It would be hard to say that the college love this, but it has certainly showed up in the exams of late: Question 26 from the first paper of 2014 and Question 5 from the second paper of 2013 asked the candidates to define bias and discuss strategies to minimise it.
There is a good article on bias in research from the journal Radiology.
Though many types of bias have been described, there are some commonly observed forms which one might want to be familiar with. The Cochrane Handbook is the best source for this.
The selection of specific patients which results in a sample group which is not random, and which is not representative of a population. This can be avoided by randomising selection.
The observations in the treatment group are pursued more diligently than in the control group. This can be avoided by blinding.
The observer makes subjective decisions about the outcome. This can be avoided by blinding the observer, and making the outcome measures objective (eg. measuring mortality, rather than than measuring the warm fluffy sensation of internal wellbeing).
The patients know whether they were allocated to the treatment group or the control group, and this discolours their reporting of their symptoms. This can be avoided by blinding the patients.
The patients enrol themselves in the trial, which results in a non-representative sample. This can be avoided by randomly sampling the population.
Publication bias was the topic of Question 5 from the second paper of 2013.
Regression to mean
When random chance influences cause extreme variations in an initial measurement, the next measurement (unaffected by this random influence) will be closer to the mean, thus giving the apparance of a treatment effect. This is avoided by using control groups.
The process of follow-up and careful scrutiny influences the patient outcome. Patients who receive more attention may do better than patients who are ignored. The way to avoid this is to mask the intention of the study from the patients and observers.
Treatment selection bias
The effects of a treatment are determined by confounders (such as differences in the patients or other co-interventions) rather than than the treatment itself.
Higgins, Julian PT, and Sally Green, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 5. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.