Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{602edf1a22444bd690804cee96cc2db9,
title = "Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: When reporting observational studies, authors should explicitly discuss the potential for confounding and other biases, but it is unclear to what extent this is carried out within the psychiatric field.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed a random sample of 120 articles in the five psychiatric specialty journals with the highest 5-year impact factor in 2015-2018. We evaluated how confounding and bias was considered in the reporting of the discussion and abstract and assessed the relationship with yearly citations.RESULTS: The term {"}confounding{"} was explicitly mentioned in the abstract or discussion in 66 articles (55.0{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI): 46.1-63.6) and the term {"}bias{"} in 68 articles (56.7{\%}; 95{\%} CI: 47.7-65.2). The authors of 25 articles (20.8{\%}; 95{\%} CI: 14.5-28.9) acknowledged unadjusted confounders. With one exception (0.8{\%}, 95{\%} CI: 0.0-4.6), authors never expressed any caution, limitation, or uncertainty in relation to confounding or other bias in their conclusions or in the abstract. Articles acknowledging nonadjusted confounders were not less frequently cited than articles that did not (median 7.9 vs. 5.6 citations per year, P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Confounding is overall inadequately addressed in the reporting and bias is often ignored in the interpretation of high-impact observational research in psychiatry.",
author = "Klaus Munkholm and Maria Faurholt-Jepsen and Ioannidis, {John P A} and Hemkens, {Lars G}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.002",
language = "English",
volume = "119",
pages = "75--84",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry

T2 - a meta-epidemiological study

AU - Munkholm, Klaus

AU - Faurholt-Jepsen, Maria

AU - Ioannidis, John P A

AU - Hemkens, Lars G

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/1/3

Y1 - 2020/1/3

N2 - OBJECTIVES: When reporting observational studies, authors should explicitly discuss the potential for confounding and other biases, but it is unclear to what extent this is carried out within the psychiatric field.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed a random sample of 120 articles in the five psychiatric specialty journals with the highest 5-year impact factor in 2015-2018. We evaluated how confounding and bias was considered in the reporting of the discussion and abstract and assessed the relationship with yearly citations.RESULTS: The term "confounding" was explicitly mentioned in the abstract or discussion in 66 articles (55.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1-63.6) and the term "bias" in 68 articles (56.7%; 95% CI: 47.7-65.2). The authors of 25 articles (20.8%; 95% CI: 14.5-28.9) acknowledged unadjusted confounders. With one exception (0.8%, 95% CI: 0.0-4.6), authors never expressed any caution, limitation, or uncertainty in relation to confounding or other bias in their conclusions or in the abstract. Articles acknowledging nonadjusted confounders were not less frequently cited than articles that did not (median 7.9 vs. 5.6 citations per year, P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Confounding is overall inadequately addressed in the reporting and bias is often ignored in the interpretation of high-impact observational research in psychiatry.

AB - OBJECTIVES: When reporting observational studies, authors should explicitly discuss the potential for confounding and other biases, but it is unclear to what extent this is carried out within the psychiatric field.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed a random sample of 120 articles in the five psychiatric specialty journals with the highest 5-year impact factor in 2015-2018. We evaluated how confounding and bias was considered in the reporting of the discussion and abstract and assessed the relationship with yearly citations.RESULTS: The term "confounding" was explicitly mentioned in the abstract or discussion in 66 articles (55.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1-63.6) and the term "bias" in 68 articles (56.7%; 95% CI: 47.7-65.2). The authors of 25 articles (20.8%; 95% CI: 14.5-28.9) acknowledged unadjusted confounders. With one exception (0.8%, 95% CI: 0.0-4.6), authors never expressed any caution, limitation, or uncertainty in relation to confounding or other bias in their conclusions or in the abstract. Articles acknowledging nonadjusted confounders were not less frequently cited than articles that did not (median 7.9 vs. 5.6 citations per year, P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Confounding is overall inadequately addressed in the reporting and bias is often ignored in the interpretation of high-impact observational research in psychiatry.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.002

M3 - Journal article

VL - 119

SP - 75

EP - 84

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -

ID: 58938306