edoc

Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding

Hemkens, Lars G. and Ewald, Hannah and Naudet, Florian and Ladanie, Aviv and Shaw, Jonathan G. and Sajeev, Gautam and Ioannidis, John P. A.. (2017) Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 93. pp. 94-102.

[img] PDF
Restricted to Repository staff only

284Kb

Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/71500/

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

Confounding bias is a most pervasive threat to validity of observational epidemiologic research. We assessed whether authors of observational epidemiologic studies consider confounding bias when interpreting the findings.; We randomly selected 120 cohort or case-control studies published in 2011 and 2012 by the general medical, epidemiologic, and specialty journals with the highest impact factors. We used Web of Science to assess citation metrics through January 2017.; Sixty-eight studies (56.7%, 95% confidence interval: 47.8-65.5%) mentioned "confounding" in the Abstract or Discussion sections, another 20 (16.7%; 10.0-23.3%) alluded to it, and there was no mention or allusion at all in 32 studies (26.7%; 18.8-34.6%). Authors often acknowledged that for specific confounders, there was no adjustment (34 studies; 28.3%) or deem it possible or likely that confounding affected their main findings (29 studies; 24.2%). However, only two studies (1.7%; 0-4.0%) specifically used the words "caution" or "cautious" for the interpretation because of confounding-related reasons and eventually only four studies (3.3%; 0.1-6.5%) had limitations related to confounding or any other bias in their Conclusions. Studies mentioning that the findings were possibly or likely affected by confounding were more frequently cited than studies with a statement that findings were unlikely affected (median 6.3 vs. 4.0 citations per year, P = 0.04).; Many observational studies lack satisfactory discussion of confounding bias. Even when confounding bias is mentioned, authors are typically confident that it is rather irrelevant to their findings and they rarely call for cautious interpretation. More careful acknowledgment of possible impact of confounding is not associated with lower citation impact.
Faculties and Departments:03 Faculty of Medicine > Departement Klinische Forschung > Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics CEB
UniBasel Contributors:Ewald, Hannah
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0895-4356
e-ISSN:1878-5921
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Language:English
Identification Number:
edoc DOI:
Last Modified:06 Jan 2020 09:04
Deposited On:06 Jan 2020 09:04

Repository Staff Only: item control page