Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice

• Published in: BMJ 2004-10, Vol.329 (7471), p.883-887
• Main Authors: Pocock, Stuart J, Collier, Timothy J, Dandreo, Kimberley J, de Stavola, Bianca L, Goldman, Marlene B, Kalish, Leslie A, Kasten, Linda E, McCormack, Valerie A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Cancer; Cardiovascular diseases; Case control studies; Cohort studies; Confidence interval; Confounding Factors (Epidemiology); Disease; Disease risk; Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic; English language; Environmental Exposure; Epidemiologic Research Design; Epidemiologic Studies; Epidemiology; General aspects; Health outcomes; Humans; Medical journals; Medical research; Medical sciences; P values; Periodicals as Topic; Ratios; Reporting; Risk factors; Surveys
• ISSN: 0959-8138; 0959-8146; 0959-535X; 1468-5833; 1756-1833
• DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55

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.