Dataset Information

Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the accessibility of absolute risk in articles reporting ratio measures in leading medical journals.

Design

Structured review of abstracts presenting ratio measures.

Setting

Articles published between 1 June 2003 and 1 May 2004 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine.

Participants

222 articles based on study designs in which absolute risks were directly calculable (61 randomised trials, 161 cohort studies).

Main outcome measure

Accessibility of the absolute risks underlying the first ratio measure in the abstract.

Results

68% of articles (150/222) failed to report the underlying absolute risks for the first ratio measure in the abstract (range 55-81% across the journals). Among these articles, about half did report the underlying absolute risks elsewhere in the article (text, table, or figure) but half did not report them anywhere. Absolute risks were more likely to be reported in the abstract for randomised trials compared with cohort studies (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 4.2) and for studies reporting crude compared with adjusted ratio measures (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 2.1 to 4.3).

Conclusion

Absolute risks are often not easily accessible in articles reporting ratio measures and sometimes are missing altogether-this lack of accessibility can easily exaggerate readers' perceptions of benefit or harm.

SUBMITTER: Schwartz LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1702463 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.

Schwartz Lisa M LM Woloshin Steven S Dvorin Evan L EL Welch H Gilbert HG

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20061023 7581

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the accessibility of absolute risk in articles reporting ratio measures in leading medical journals.<h4>Design</h4>Structured review of abstracts presenting ratio measures.<h4>Setting</h4>Articles published between 1 June 2003 and 1 May 2004 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine.<h4>Participants</h4>222 articles based on study designs in w ...[more]

PMID: 17060338

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess how often stratified randomisation is used, whether analysis adjusted for all balancing variables, and whether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, and to reanalyse a previously reported trial to assess the impact of ignoring balancing factors in the analysis.DesignReview of published trials and reanalysis of a previously reported trial.SettingFour leading general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) and the second Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial (MIST2).Participants258 trials published in 2010 in the four journals. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-randomised, single arm, and phase I or II trials were excluded, as were trials reporting secondary analyses, interim analyses, or results that had been previously published in 2010.Main outcome measuresWhether the method of randomisation was adequately reported, how often balanced randomisation was used, and whether balancing factors were adjusted for in the analysis.ResultsReanalysis of MIST2 showed that an unadjusted analysis led to larger P values and a loss of power. The review of published trials showed that balanced randomisation was common, with 163 trials (63%) using at least one balancing variable. The most common methods of balancing were stratified permuted blocks (n=85) and minimisation (n=27). The method of randomisation was unclear in 37% of trials. Most trials that balanced on centre or prognostic factors were not adequately analysed; only 26% of trials adjusted for all balancing factors in their primary analysis. Trials that did not adjust for balancing factors in their analysis were less likely to show a statistically significant result (unadjusted 57% v adjusted 78%, P=0.02).ConclusionBalancing on centre or prognostic factors is common in trials but often poorly described, and the implications of balancing are poorly understood. Trialists should adjust their primary analysis for balancing factors to obtain correct P values and confidence intervals and to avoid an unnecessary loss in power.

Project description:ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extractionKey data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).ResultsWe included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.ConclusionsWomen were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.Prospero registration numberCRD42020186702.

Dataset Information

Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure