Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

    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 journalReviewpeer-review

  1. Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewpeer-review

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

    Research output: Other contributionResearch

  3. Individual response to antidepressants for depression in adults-a meta-analysis and simulation study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Continuing Antipsychotic Medication for Patients With Psychotic Depression in Remission

    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
Pages (from-to)75-84
Number of pages10
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