CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers: the CHAMP statement.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mansournia MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9154008 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers: the CHAMP statement.
Mansournia Mohammad Ali MA Collins Gary S GS Nielsen Rasmus Oestergaard RO Nazemipour Maryam M Jewell Nicholas P NP Altman Douglas G DG Campbell Michael J MJ
British journal of sports medicine 20210129 18
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is widespread evidence that statistical methods play an important role in original research articles, especially in medical research. The evaluation of statistical methods and reporting in journals suffers from a lack of standardized methods for assessing the use of statistics. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an instrument to assess the statistical intensity in research articles in a standardized way.A checklist-type measure scale was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the statistical contents of medical journal articles and from published guidelines for statistical reporting. A total of 840 original medical research articles that were published between 2007-2015 in 16 journals were evaluated to test the scoring instrument. The total sum of all items was used to assess the intensity between sub-fields and journals. Inter-rater agreement was examined using a random sample of 40 articles. Four raters read and evaluated the selected articles using the developed instrument.The scale consisted of 66 items. The total summary score adequately discriminated between research articles according to their study design characteristics. The new instrument could also discriminate between journals according to their statistical intensity. The inter-observer agreement measured by the ICC was 0.88 between all four raters. Individual item analysis showed very high agreement between the rater pairs, the percentage agreement ranged from 91.7% to 95.2%.A reliable and applicable instrument for evaluating the statistical intensity in research papers was developed. It is a helpful tool for comparing the statistical intensity between sub-fields and journals. The novel instrument may be applied in manuscript peer review to identify papers in need of additional statistical review.
| S-EPMC5650171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although regression models play a central role in the analysis of medical research projects, there still exist many misconceptions on various aspects of modeling leading to faulty analyses. Indeed, the rapidly developing statistical methodology and its recent advances in regression modeling do not seem to be adequately reflected in many medical publications. This problem of knowledge transfer from statistical research to application was identified by some medical journals, which have published series of statistical tutorials and (shorter) papers mainly addressing medical researchers. The aim of this review was to assess the current level of knowledge with regard to regression modeling contained in such statistical papers. We searched for target series by a request to international statistical experts. We identified 23 series including 57 topic-relevant articles. Within each article, two independent raters analyzed the content by investigating 44 predefined aspects on regression modeling. We assessed to what extent the aspects were explained and if examples, software advices, and recommendations for or against specific methods were given. Most series (21/23) included at least one article on multivariable regression. Logistic regression was the most frequently described regression type (19/23), followed by linear regression (18/23), Cox regression and survival models (12/23) and Poisson regression (3/23). Most general aspects on regression modeling, e.g. model assumptions, reporting and interpretation of regression results, were covered. We did not find many misconceptions or misleading recommendations, but we identified relevant gaps, in particular with respect to addressing nonlinear effects of continuous predictors, model specification and variable selection. Specific recommendations on software were rarely given. Statistical guidance should be developed for nonlinear effects, model specification and variable selection to better support medical researchers who perform or interpret regression analyses.
| S-EPMC8786189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Personalized healthcare relies on the identification of factors explaining why individuals respond differently to the same intervention. Analyses identifying such factors, so called predictors and moderators, have their own set of assumptions and limitations which, when violated, can result in misleading claims, and incorrect actions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist for critically appraising the results of predictor and moderator analyses by combining recommendations from published guidelines and experts in the field.Candidate criteria for the checklist were retrieved through systematic searches of the literature. These criteria were evaluated for appropriateness using a Delphi procedure. Two Delphi rounds yielded a pilot checklist, which was tested on a set of papers included in a systematic review on reinforced home-based palliative care. The results of the pilot informed a third Delphi round, which served to finalize the checklist.Forty-nine appraisal criteria were identified in the literature. Feedback was obtained from fourteen experts from (bio)statistics, epidemiology and other associated fields elicited via three Delphi rounds. Additional feedback from other researchers was collected in a pilot test. The final version of our checklist included seventeen criteria, covering the design (e.g. a priori plausibility), analysis (e.g. use of interaction tests) and results (e.g. complete reporting) of moderator and predictor analysis, together with the transferability of the results (e.g. clinical importance). There are criteria both for individual papers and for bodies of evidence.The proposed checklist can be used for critical appraisal of reported moderator and predictor effects, as assessed in randomized or non-randomized studies using individual participant or aggregate data. This checklist is accompanied by a user's guide to facilitate implementation. Its future use across a wide variety of research domains and study types will provide insights about its usability and feasibility.
| S-EPMC5740883 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: The CONSORT Statement is a reporting guideline for authors when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare RCT reports. It has been endorsed by many high-impact medical journals and by international editorial groups. This study was conducted to assess the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high-impact medical journals in China by reviewing their instructions for authors. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A total of 200 medical journals were selected according to the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports, 195 of which publish clinical research papers. Their instructions for authors were reviewed and all texts mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers were extracted. Any mention of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or 'clinical trial registration' was also extracted. For journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, their most recently published RCT reports were retrieved and evaluated to assess whether the journals have followed what the CONSORT Statement required. Out of the 195 medical journals publishing clinical research papers, only six (6/195, 3.08%) mentioned 'CONSORT' in their instructions for authors; out of the 200 medical journals surveyed, only 14 (14/200, 7.00%) mentioned 'ICMJE' or 'URM' in their instructions for authors, and another five journals stated in their instructions for authors that clinical trials should have trial registration numbers and that priority would be given to clinical trials which had been registered. Among the 62 RCT reports published in the six journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, 20 (20/62, 32.26%) contained flow diagrams and only three (3/62, 4.84%) provided trial registration information. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Medical journals in China endorsing either the CONSORT Statement or the ICMJE's URM constituted a small percentage of the total; all of these journals used ambiguous language regarding what was expected of authors.
| S-EPMC3278410 | biostudies-other
Project description:Publishing medical papers in English is important as English remains the predominant language for most medical papers (both electronic and traditional journal publications). In addition, journals with the highest impact factors are published in English and a publication in English thus enhances the visibility of authors and their institutions, and is important for promotion in some academic centers. This article reviews the basic principles that will help you successfully publish a manuscript in English. Although other books and articles are available on this subject, there are relatively few references. The present article is based on this author's experience of publishing nearly 400 articles in English. It will emphasize writing original articles, but the principles can be applied to virtually any type of manuscript.
| S-EPMC3341452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Given an observed test statistic and its degrees of freedom, one may compute the observed P value with most statistical packages. It is unknown to what extent test statistics and P values are congruent in published medical papers. METHODS: We checked the congruence of statistical results reported in all the papers of volumes 409-412 of Nature (2001) and a random sample of 63 results from volumes 322-323 of BMJ (2001). We also tested whether the frequencies of the last digit of a sample of 610 test statistics deviated from a uniform distribution (i.e., equally probable digits). RESULTS: 11.6% (21 of 181) and 11.1% (7 of 63) of the statistical results published in Nature and BMJ respectively during 2001 were incongruent, probably mostly due to rounding, transcription, or type-setting errors. At least one such error appeared in 38% and 25% of the papers of Nature and BMJ, respectively. In 12% of the cases, the significance level might change one or more orders of magnitude. The frequencies of the last digit of statistics deviated from the uniform distribution and suggested digit preference in rounding and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: This incongruence of test statistics and P values is another example that statistical practice is generally poor, even in the most renowned scientific journals, and that quality of papers should be more controlled and valued.
| S-EPMC443510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men.
| S-EPMC7304994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective physical activity messaging plays an important role in the pathway towards changing physical activity behaviour at a population level. The Physical Activity Messaging Framework (PAMF) and Checklist (PAMC) are outputs from a recent modified Delphi study. This sought consensus from an international expert panel on how to aid the creation and evaluation of physical activity messages. In this paper, we (1) present an overview of the various concepts within the PAMF and PAMC, (2) discuss in detail how the PAMF and PAMC can be used to create physical activity messages, plan evaluation of messages, and aid understanding and categorisation of existing messages, and (3) highlight areas for future development and research. If adopted, we propose that the PAMF and PAMC could improve physical activity messaging practice by encouraging evidence-based and target population-focused messages with clearly stated aims and consideration of potential working pathways. They could also enhance the physical activity messaging research base by harmonising key messaging terminologies, improving quality of reporting, and aiding collation and synthesis of the evidence.
| S-EPMC8684545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health promotion, as defined by the Ottawa Charter (1) is the 'process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health'. Four life style risk factors: smoking, alcohol, obesity and physical activity are recognised as leading to health inequalities. These factors have implications at an individual, community and national level and the burden of disease has large cost implications for the NHS and country as a whole. Therefore the assessment of these risk factors, and the provision of good health promotion assist to address these problems. A pilot and initial audit demonstrated that assessment for the key life style risk factors and the provision of health promotion was poor. This quality improvement audit developed an easy to use, checklist based, amended clerking document. This improved both assessment and provision of health promotion and will be carried forward to influence the designing of a new clerking document.
| S-EPMC4652705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the rate of use of target doses of foundational guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in a contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across systolic blood pressure (SBP) categories.BackgroundPatients with HFrEF are infrequently titrated to recommended doses of GDMT. The relationship between SBP and achieving GDMT target doses is not well studied.MethodsPatients enrolled in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry without documented intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and beta blockers (BBs) were assessed at enrollment. We estimated the proportion receiving target doses (% of target dose [95% confidence interval (CI)]) based on the most recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines at baseline in all patients, and by SBP category (≥110 vs. <110 mm Hg).ResultsOf the 3,095 patients eligible for analysis, 2,421 (78.2%) had SBP ≥110 mm Hg. The proportion of patients receiving target doses were 18.7% (95% CI: 17.3% to 20.0%; BB), 10.8% (95% CI: 9.7% to 11.9%; ACEI/ARB), and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5% to 2.5%; ARNI). Among those with SBP <110 mm Hg (n = 674), 17.5% (95% CI: 14.6% to 20.4%; BB), 6.2% (95% CI: 4.4% to 8.1%; ACEI/ARB), and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8% to 2.8%; ARNI) were receiving target doses. Among those with SBP ≥110 mm Hg (n = 2,421), 19.0% (95% CI: 17.4% to 20.6%; BB), 12.1% (95% CI: 10.8% to 13.4%; ACEI/ARB), and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5% to 2.6%; ARNI) were receiving target doses.ConclusionsIn a large, contemporary registry of outpatients with chronic HFrEF eligible for treatment with BBs and ACEI/ARB/ARNI, <20% of patients were receiving target doses, even among those with SBP ≥110 mm Hg.
| S-EPMC6440823 | biostudies-literature