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. Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  2. Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  4. Transparent and systematic reporting of meta-epidemiological studies

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Hypomania/Mania by DSM-5 definition based on daily smartphone-based patient-reported assessments

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Using big data to advance mental health research

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Smartphones in mental health: a critical review of background issues, current status and future concerns

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  4. Sertraline in primary care: comments on the PANDA trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearch

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 - 3 Jan 2020

ID: 58938306