Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10711263›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2000

Reporting of occupational and environmental research: use and misuse of statistical and epidemiological methods.

L Rushton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quality of reporting statistics in two Indian pharmacology journals.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2011
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

L RushtonMRC Institute for Environment and Health, University of Leicester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report some of the most serious omissions and errors which may occur in papers submitted to Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and to give guidelines on the essential components that should be included in papers reporting results from studies of occupational and environmental health.

methodsSince 1994 Occupational and Environmental Medicine has used a panel of medical statisticians to review submitted papers which have a substantial statistical content. Although some studies may have genuine errors in their design, execution, and analysis, many of the problems identified during the reviewing process are due to inadequate and incomplete reporting of essential aspects of a study. This paper outlines some of the most important errors and omissions that may occur. Observational studies are often the preferred choice of design in occupational and environmental medicine. Some of the issues relating to design, execution, and analysis which should be considered when reporting three of the most common observational study designs, cross sectional, case-control, and cohort are described. An illustration of good reporting practice is given for each. Various mathematical modelling techniques are often used in the analysis of these studies, the reporting of which causes a major problem to some authors. Suggestions for the presentation of results from modelling are made.

conclusionsThere is increasing interest in the development and application of formal "good epidemiology practices". These not only consider issues of data quality, study design, and study conduct, but through their structured approach to the documentation of the study procedures, provide the potential for more rigorous reporting of the results in the scientific literature.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmental MedicineEpidemiologic Research DesignOccupational MedicineBiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicGuidelines as TopicHumansPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID10711263
PMCPMC1739857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.