Dataset Information

A review found inadequate reporting of case-control studies of risk factors for pancreatic cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Case-control studies are often used to identify the risk factors for pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of case-control studies of the risk factors for pancreatic cancer using the Strengthening The Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for case-control studies checklist.

Study design and setting

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify reports of case-control studies published between 2016 and 2018. We scored article reporting using a reporting adherence form developed from the STROBE checklist for case-control studies, consisting of 14 STROBE items related to the title, abstract, methods, and results sections.

Results

We included reports of 47 case-control studies investigating a variety of risk factors, such as medical conditions and lifestyle factors. Reporting was inconsistent and inadequate. Efforts to address bias and how the study size was arrived at were particularly poorly described. Study cases were described in more detail than study controls.

Conclusion

Reporting of case-control studies remains inadequate more than 10 years after the STROBE reporting guideline was published. Our findings suggest that authors do not understand the extent to which study methods and findings should be reported to enable studies to be fully understood, and their methods reproduced.

SUBMITTER: MacCarthy A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168827 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Women who undergo intrapartum caesarean delivery (CD) are at increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) compared with those undergoing prelabor CD. To determine whether the presence and strength of the associations between individual risk factors and severe PPH vary among women undergoing prelabor CD or intrapartum CD, stratified analyses are needed according to CD subtype.To identify risk factors for severe PPH within 2 distinct CD populations, prelabor CD and intrapartum CD, we performed 2 case-control studies. Women in each study cohort delivered at a tertiary obstetric center in the United States between 2002 and 2012. For each study, cases were women who had a blood loss ?1500 mL or who received an intraoperative or postoperative transfusion up to 48 hours after delivery. Risk factors for severe PPH among women undergoing prelabor CD or intrapartum CD were examined in separate logistic regression models.For prelabor CD, we identified 269 cases and 550 controls. Clinical factors with the highest adjusted odds for severe PPH during prelabor CD were general anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 22.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-99.9; reference group = spinal anesthesia), multiple pregnancies (aOR = 8.0; 95% CI, 4.2-15.0; reference group = singleton pregnancy), and placenta previa (aOR = 6.3; 95% CI, 3.4-11.8). For intrapartum CD, we identified 278 cases and 572 controls. Clinical factors with the highest adjusted odds for severe PPH during intrapartum CD were general anesthesia (aOR = 5.4; 95% CI, 1.7-17.1), multiple pregnancies (aOR = 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.3), and a predelivery hemoglobin ? 9.9 g/dL (aOR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.9; reference group = predelivery hemoglobin ? 11 g/dL).Women who undergo prelabor CD and intrapartum CD have several shared risk factors for severe PPH (general anesthesia and multiple pregnancies). However, the risk factor profiles for severe PPH differed between these CD cohorts. Recognizing these differences may be important when planning resources and interventions for high-risk patients undergoing either prelabor or intrapartum CD.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying breast cancer risk factors is a critical component of preventative strategies for this disease. This study aims to identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors of breast cancer in Iranian women.MethodsWe used international databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Embase) and national databases (SID, Magiran, and ISC) to retrieve relevant studies until November 13, 2022. The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using the random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled effect. The publication bias was assessed by the Egger and Begg test. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of each included study on the final measurement.ResultsOf the 30,351 retrieved articles, 24 matched case-control records were included with 12,460 participants (5675 newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer and 6785 control). This meta-analysis showed that of the known modifiable risk factors for breast cancer, obesity (vs normal weight) had the highest risk (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.21; I2 = 85.7) followed by age at marriage (25-29 vs < 18 years old) (OR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.61; I2 = 0), second-hand smoking (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.19; I2 = 0), smoking (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.38; I2 = 18.9), abortion history (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05; I2 = 66.3), oral contraceptive use (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.63; I2 = 74.1), age at marriage (18-24 vs < 18 years old) (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.47; I2 = 0). Of non-modifiable risk factors, history of radiation exposure (OR = 3.48, 95% CI 2.17 to 5.59; I2 = 0), family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.47, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.33; I2 = 73), and age at menarche (12-13 vs ≥ 14 years old) (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.31-2.13; I2 = 25.4) significantly increased the risk of breast cancer.ConclusionsSince most risk factors related to breast cancer incidence are modifiable, promoting healthy lifestyles can play an influential role in preventing breast cancer. In women with younger menarche age, a family history of breast cancer, or a history of radiation exposure, screening at short intervals is recommended.

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.