Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this database

http://afar.info/id=1016

Created on : 16 Nov 2004
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007


 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

hard

Author(s) :

Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, Kasten LE, McCormack VA.

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.
The British Medical Journal 2004;329:883.

Year of publication :

2004

Résumé (français) :

Abstract (English):

Objectives: To review current practice in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological research and to identify limitations.

Design: Examination of articles published in January 2001 that investigated associations between risk factors/exposure variables and disease events/measures in individuals.

Setting: Eligible English language journals including all major epidemiological journals, all major general medical journals, and the two leading journals in cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Main outcome measure: Each article was evaluated with a standard proforma.

Results: We found 73 articles in observational epidemiology; most were either cohort or case-control studies. Most studies looked at cancer and cardiovascular disease, even after we excluded specialty journals. Quantitative exposure variables predominated, which were mostly analysed as ordered categories but with little consistency or explanation regarding choice of categories. Sample selection, participant refusal, and data quality received insufficient attention in many articles. Statistical analyses commonly used odds ratios (38 articles) and hazard/rate ratios (23), with some inconsistent use of terminology. Confidence intervals were reported in most studies (68), though use of P values was less common (38). Few articles explained their choice of confounding variables; many performed subgroup analyses claiming an effect modifier, though interaction tests were rare. Several investigated multiple associations between exposure and outcome, increasing the likelihood of false positive claims. There was evidence of publication bias.

Conclusions: This survey raises concerns regarding inadequacies in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological publications in mainstream journals.

Sumário (português):

URL :

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/74…

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Une analyse critique de la méthodologie employée dans les études épidémiologiques: inquiétudes sur la validité de beaucoup de résultats publiés.

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

deontology ; evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; survey ; ethics

Author of this record :

Cécile_Loup — 16 Nov 2004


DateDiscussion (only in English)Author
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

New expert query ---  New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, http://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, http://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) becoming a member of AFAR
(2) financially supporting AFAR
(3) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in scientific documentation.
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!