Dataset Information

Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the distribution of P values in abstracts of randomised controlled trials with that in observational studies, and to check P values between 0.04 and 0.06.

Design

Cross sectional study of all 260 abstracts in PubMed of articles published in 2003 that contained "relative risk" or "odds ratio" and reported results from a randomised trial, and random samples of 130 abstracts from cohort studies and 130 from case-control studies. P values were noted or calculated if unreported.

Main outcome measures

Prevalence of significant P values in abstracts and distribution of P values between 0.04 and 0.06.

Results

The first result in the abstract was statistically significant in 70% of the trials, 84% of cohort studies, and 84% of case-control studies. Although many of these results were derived from subgroup or secondary analyses, or biased selection of results, they were presented without reservations in 98% of the trials. P values were more extreme in observational studies (P < 0.001) and in cohort studies than in case-control studies (P = 0.04). The distribution of P values around P = 0.05 was extremely skewed. Only five trials had 0.05 < or = P < 0.06, whereas 29 trials had 0.04 < or = P < 0.05. I could check the calculations for 27 of these trials. One of four non-significant results was significant. Four of the 23 significant results were wrong, five were doubtful, and four could be discussed. Nine cohort studies and eight case-control studies reported P values between 0.04 and 0.06, but in all 17 cases P < 0.05. Because the analyses had been adjusted for confounders, these results could not be checked.

Conclusions

Significant results in abstracts are common but should generally be disbelieved.

SUBMITTER: Gotzsche PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1523498 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study.

Gøtzsche Peter C PC

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060719 7561

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the distribution of P values in abstracts of randomised controlled trials with that in observational studies, and to check P values between 0.04 and 0.06.<h4>Design</h4>Cross sectional study of all 260 abstracts in PubMed of articles published in 2003 that contained "relative risk" or "odds ratio" and reported results from a randomised trial, and random samples of 130 abstracts from cohort studies and 130 from case-control studies. P values were noted or calculated i ...[more]

PMID: 16854948

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the globe, the search for an effective medication to treat the symptoms of COVID-19 continues as well. It would be desirable to identify a medication that is already in use for another condition and whose side effect profile and safety data are already known and approved.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different medications on typical COVID-19 symptoms by using data from an online surveillance survey.MethodsBetween early April and late-July 2020, a total of 3654 individuals in Lower Saxony, Germany, participated in an online symptom-tracking survey conducted through the app covid-nein-danke.de. The questionnaire comprised items on typical COVID-19 symptoms, age range, gender, employment in patient-facing healthcare, housing status, postal code, previous illnesses, permanent medication, vaccination status, results of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antibody tests for COVID-19 diagnosis, and consequent COVID-19 treatment if applicable. Odds ratio estimates with corresponding 95% CIs were computed for each medication and symptom by using logistic regression models.ResultsData analysis suggested a statistically significant inverse relationship between typical COVID-19 symptoms self-reported by the participants and self-reported statin therapy and, to a lesser extent, antihypertensive therapy. When COVID-19 diagnosis was based on restrictive symptom criteria (ie, presence of 4 out of 7 symptoms) or a positive RT-PCR test, a statistically significant association was found solely for statins (odds ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.1-0.78).ConclusionsIndividuals taking statin medication are more likely to have asymptomatic COVID-19, in which case they may be at an increased risk of transmitting the disease unknowingly. We suggest that the results of this study be incorporated into symptoms-based surveillance and decision-making protocols in regard to COVID-19 management. Whether statin therapy has a beneficial effect in combating COVID-19 cannot be deduced based on our findings and should be investigated by further study.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00022185; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022185; World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform U1111-1252-6946.

Project description:BackgroundPublic engagement in the research of environmental epidemiological problems is becoming an important measure to empower citizens to identify the local environmental and health problems and to explain different environmental exposures affect estimates for males and females. This HORIZON2020 CitieS-Health Kaunas Pilot study examines the relationship between urban built and social environment, health behaviors, and health in men and women.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 1086 18-74-year-old participants residing in 11 districts of Kaunas city, Lithuania. Using GIS, we measured traffic flow, noise, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, and greenness NDVI for the participants' home addresses, determined participants' perceptions of environmental quality, linked this information with personal sociodemographic data, and used multivariate logistic regression to assess the associations with health issues (physician-diagnosed chronic disease and self-rated general health) in men and women.ResultsMen and women similar rated the quality of the neighborhood environment, except for air pollution and satisfaction with the public transport in the district. The traffic-related health associations were stronger for women than for men. The prevalence of poor health increased with the increasing age of men and women, yet no significant differences between gender health risks were found in the total sample. Perceived air pollution, irregular visits to green space, and chronic diseases were consistently associated with poor health risks in men and women, yet part-time jobs and low income had a higher impact on women's poor health.ConclusionsQuality of the built neighborhood, air pollution, irregular visits to the green space, and chronic disease had a joint effect on the magnitude of the prevalence of poor health in men and women. Our results suggest that decreasing air pollution and improving the urban built neighborhood supporting citizens' physical activity in green spaces, might reduce health risks for all.

Dataset Information

Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study.

Objective

Design

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure