Dataset Information

Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used in cardiovascular clinical research. Previous evaluations revealed poor reporting of PS methods, however a comprehensive and current evaluation of PS use and reporting is lacking. The objectives of the present survey were to (1) evaluate the quality of PS methods in cardiovascular publications, (2) summarise PS methods and (3) propose key reporting elements for PS publications. METHODS:A PubMed search for cardiovascular PS articles published between 2010 and 2017 in high-impact general medical (top five by impact factor) and cardiovascular (top three by impact factor) journals was performed. Articles were evaluated for the reporting of PS techniques and methods. Data extraction elements were identified from the PS literature and extraction forms were pilot tested. RESULTS:Of the 306 PS articles identified, most were published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (29%; n=88), and Circulation (27%, n=81), followed by European Heart Journal (15%; n=47). PS matching was performed most often, followed by direct adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting and stratification. Most studies (77%; n=193) selected variables to include in the PS model a priori. A total of 38% (n=116) of studies did not report standardised mean differences, but instead relied on hypothesis testing. For matching, 92% (n=193) of articles presented the balance of covariates. Overall, interpretations of the effect estimates corresponded to the PS method conducted or described in 49% (n=150) of the reviewed articles. DISCUSSION:Although PS methods are frequently used in high-impact medical journals, reporting of methodological details has been inconsistent. Improved reporting of PS results is warranted and these proposals should aid both researchers and consumers in the presentation and interpretation of PS methods.

SUBMITTER: Samuel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7451534 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document.

Samuel Michelle M Batomen Brice B Rouette Julie J Kim Joanne J Platt Robert W RW Brophy James M JM Kaufman Jay S JS

BMJ open 20200826 8

<h4>Background</h4>Propensity score (PS) methods are frequently used in cardiovascular clinical research. Previous evaluations revealed poor reporting of PS methods, however a comprehensive and current evaluation of PS use and reporting is lacking. The objectives of the present survey were to (1) evaluate the quality of PS methods in cardiovascular publications, (2) summarise PS methods and (3) propose key reporting elements for PS publications.<h4>Methods</h4>A PubMed search for cardiovascular ...[more]

PMID: 32847911

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information.MethodsWe addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ResultsOf 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.ConclusionAlthough the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.ObjectiveThis study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants' willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants' demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).ResultsThe sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants' willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has linked social media usage to poorer mental health. To address these concerns, social media platforms have introduced digital well-being tools to help users monitor their engagement. Nonetheless, little is known about the effectiveness of these tools.ObjectiveIn this study, we focused on Facebook to assess users' awareness and usage of the following six Facebook well-being tools: the Unfollow, Snooze, Off-Facebook Activity, Your Time on Facebook, Set Daily Reminders, and Notification Settings features. Additionally, we examined whether the use of these tools was associated with better mental health outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 598 Facebook users. The survey comprised questions about (1) baseline Facebook use, (2) the adoption of Facebook's digital well-being tools, and (3) participant demographics. These were used to predict the primary outcome measure-scores on the 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale.ResultsMost participants (580/598, 97%) knew about Facebook's digital well-being tools, but each tool was used by only 17.4% (104/598) to 55.5% (332/598) of participants. In turn, the use of two tools was associated with better well-being; although participants who spent more time on Facebook reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, those who managed their feed content or notifications by using the Unfollow or Notification Settings features had lower scores on each of these measures. However, the use of the Snooze, Off-Facebook Activity, Your Time on Facebook, or Set Time Reminder features was not associated with lower depression, anxiety, or stress scores.ConclusionsOf the 6 Facebook digital well-being tools, only 2 were associated with better mental health among users. This underscores the complexity of designing social media platforms to promote user welfare. Consequently, we urge further research into understanding the efficacy of various digital well-being tools.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04967846; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04967846.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document.

Publications

Evaluation of propensity score used in cardiovascular research: a cross-sectional survey and guidance document.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets