Dataset Information

A review of published analyses of case-cohort studies and recommendations for future reporting.

ABSTRACT: The case-cohort study design combines the advantages of a cohort study with the efficiency of a nested case-control study. However, unlike more standard observational study designs, there are currently no guidelines for reporting results from case-cohort studies. Our aim was to review recent practice in reporting these studies, and develop recommendations for the future. By searching papers published in 24 major medical and epidemiological journals between January 2010 and March 2013 using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge, we identified 32 papers reporting case-cohort studies. The median subcohort sampling fraction was 4.1% (interquartile range 3.7% to 9.1%). The papers varied in their approaches to describing the numbers of individuals in the original cohort and the subcohort, presenting descriptive data, and in the level of detail provided about the statistical methods used, so it was not always possible to be sure that appropriate analyses had been conducted. Based on the findings of our review, we make recommendations about reporting of the study design, subcohort definition, numbers of participants, descriptive information and statistical methods, which could be used alongside existing STROBE guidelines for reporting observational studies.

SUBMITTER: Sharp SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4074158 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of published analyses of case-cohort studies and recommendations for future reporting.

Sharp Stephen J SJ Poulaliou Manon M Thompson Simon G SG White Ian R IR Wood Angela M AM

PloS one 20140627 6

The case-cohort study design combines the advantages of a cohort study with the efficiency of a nested case-control study. However, unlike more standard observational study designs, there are currently no guidelines for reporting results from case-cohort studies. Our aim was to review recent practice in reporting these studies, and develop recommendations for the future. By searching papers published in 24 major medical and epidemiological journals between January 2010 and March 2013 using PubMe ...[more]

PMID: 24972092

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproducible manner. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in AI studies involving CMR segmentation.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for AI CMR segmentation studies in April 2022. Any fully automated AI method for segmentation of cardiac chambers, myocardium or scar on CMR was considered for inclusion. For each study, compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was assessed. The CLAIM criteria were grouped into study, dataset, model and performance description domains.Results209 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Studies were mainly published in technical journals (58%), with the majority (57%) published since 2019. Studies were from 37 different countries, with most from China (26%), the United States (18%) and the United Kingdom (11%). Short axis CMR images were most frequently used (70%), with the left ventricle the most commonly segmented cardiac structure (49%). Median compliance of studies with CLAIM was 67% (IQR 59-73%). Median compliance was highest for the model description domain (100%, IQR 80-100%) and lower for the study (71%, IQR 63-86%), dataset (63%, IQR 50-67%) and performance (60%, IQR 50-70%) description domains.ConclusionThis systematic review highlights important gaps in the literature of CMR studies using AI. We identified key items missing-most strikingly poor description of patients included in the training and validation of AI models and inadequate model failure analysis-that limit the transparency, reproducibility and hence validity of published AI studies. This review may support closer adherence to established frameworks for reporting standards and presents recommendations for improving the quality of reporting in this field.Systematic review registration[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022279214].

Project description:The putative risk/protective factors for several personality disorders remain unclear. The vast majority of published studies has assessed personality characteristics/traits rather than disorders. Thus, the current umbrella review of meta-analyses (MAs) aims to systematically assess risk or protective factors associated with personality disorders. We searched PubMed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo databases, up to August 31, 2020. Quality of MAs was assessed with AMSTAR-2, while the credibility of evidence for each association was assessed through standard quantitative criteria. Out of 571 initial references, five meta-analyses met inclusion criteria, encompassing 56 associations of 26 potential environmental factors for antisocial, dependent, borderline personality disorder, with a median of five studies per association, and median 214 cases per association. Overall, 35 (62.5%) of the associations were nominally significant. Six associations met class II (i.e., highly suggestive) evidence for borderline personality disorder, with large effect sizes involving childhood emotional abuse (OR = 28.15, 95% CI 14.76-53.68), childhood emotional neglect (OR = 22.86, 95% CI 11.55-45.22), childhood any adversities (OR = 14.32, 95% CI 10.80-18.98), childhood physical abuse (OR = 9.30, 95% CI 6.57-13.17), childhood sexual abuse (OR = 7.95, 95% CI 6.21-10.17), and childhood physical neglect (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 3.21-10.21), plus 16 further associations supported by class IV evidence. No risk factor for antisocial or dependent personality disorder was supported by class I, II, and III, but six and seven met class IV evidence, respectively. Quality of included meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two, critically low in three. The large effect sizes found for a broad range of childhood adversities suggest that prevention of personality disorders should target childhood-related risk factors. However, larger cohort studies assessing multidimensional risk factors are needed in the field.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the data pipeline from the data collection process to the planned statistical analyses, initial data analysis (IDA) typically takes place between the end of the data collection and do not touch the research questions. A systematic process for IDA and clear reporting of the findings would help to understand the potential shortcomings of a dataset, such as missing values, or subgroups with small sample sizes, or shortcomings in the collection process, and to evaluate the impact of these shortcomings on the research results. A clear reporting of findings is also relevant when making datasets available to other researchers. Initial data analyses can provide valuable insights into the suitability of a data set for a future research study. Our aim was to describe the practice of reporting of initial data analyses in observational studies in five highly ranked medical journals with focus on data cleaning, screening, and reporting of findings which led to a potential change in the analysis plan. METHODS:This review was carried out using systematic search strategies with eligibility criteria for articles to be reviewed. A total of 25 papers about observational studies were selected from five medical journals published in 2018. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers and IDA statements were further discussed by all authors. The consensus was reported. RESULTS:IDA statements were reported in the methods, results, discussion, and supplement of papers. Ten out of 25 papers (40%) included a statement about data cleaning. Data screening statements were included in all articles, and 18 (72%) indicated the methods used to describe them. Item missingness was reported in 11 papers (44%), unit missingness in 15 papers (60%). Eleven papers (44%) mentioned some changes in the analysis plan. Reported changes referred to missing data treatment, unexpected values, population heterogeneity and aspects related to variable distributions or data properties. CONCLUSION:Reporting of initial data analyses were sparse, and statements on IDA were located throughout the research articles. There is a lack of systematic reporting of IDA. We conclude the article with recommendations on how to overcome shortcomings in the practice of IDA reporting in observational studies.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.Methods and findingsStudies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Electrochemotherapy is becoming a well-established treatment for malignancies of skin and non-skin origin and its use is widening across Europe. The technique was developed and optimized from solid experimental and clinical evidence. A consensus document is now warranted to formalize reporting results, which should strengthen evidence-based practice recommendations. This consensus should be derived from high quality clinical data collection, clinical expertise and summarizing patient feedback. The first step, which is addressed in this paper, aims to critically analyze the quality of published studies and to provide the recommendations for reporting clinical trials on electrochemotherapy. METHODS:The quality of reporting in published studies on electrochemotherapy was analyzed in order to produce procedure specific reporting recommendations. A comprehensive literature search of studies published from 2006 to 2015 was performed followed by qualitative analysis of manuscripts assessing for 47 quality criteria grouped into four major clusters: (1) trial design, (2) description of patient population, (3) description of treatment delivery and patient outcome, (4) analysis of results and their interpretation. The summary measure during literature assessment was the proportion of studies fulfilling each manuscript quality criteria. RESULTS:A total of 56 studies were screened, from the period 2006 to 2015, of which 33 were included in the qualitative analysis, with a total of 1215 patients. Overall, the quality of reporting was highly variable. Twenty-four reports (73%) were single-center, non-comparative studies, and only 15 (45%) were prospective in nature (only 2 of them were entered into a clinical trials registry). Electrochemotherapy technique was consistently reported, with most studies (31/33) adhering closely to published standard operating procedures. The quality of reporting the patient population was variable among the analyzed studies, with only between 45% and 100% achieving dedicated quality criteria. Reporting of treatment delivery and patient outcome was also highly variable with studies only fulfilling between 3% and 100%. Finally, reporting study results critically varied, fulfilling from 27% to 100% of the quality criteria. Based on the critical issues emerging from this analysis, recommendations and minimal requirements for reporting clinical data on electrochemotherapy were prepared and summarized into a checklist. CONCLUSIONS:There is an increasing body of published clinical data on electrochemotherapy, but more high quality clinical data are needed. Published papers often lack accurate description of study population, treatment delivery as well as patient outcome. Our recommendations, provided in the form of a summary checklist, are intended to ameliorate data reporting in future studies on electrochemotherapy and help researchers to provide a solid evidence basis for clinical practice.

Dataset Information

A review of published analyses of case-cohort studies and recommendations for future reporting.

Publications

A review of published analyses of case-cohort studies and recommendations for future reporting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets