Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) did not improve responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes on quality of life

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Unlike ROC analysis, a new IRT method identified clinical thresholds unbiased by disease prevalence

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume119
Pages (from-to)75-84
Number of pages10
ISSN0895-4356
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2020

    Research areas

  • Bias, Bibliometrics, Confounding, Observational studies, Psychiatry, Research reporting, Epidemiologic Studies, Observational Studies as Topic/methods, Humans, Psychiatry/methods, Research Report/standards

ID: 58938306