Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15469946›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.

Stuart J Pocock, Timothy J Collier, Kimberley J Dandreo, Bianca L de Stavola, Marlene B Goldman, Leslie A Kalish, Linda E Kasten, Valerie A McCormack

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The effectiveness and safety of proton radiation therapy for indications of the eye : a systematic review.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2009
    Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Analysis ofOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stuart J PocockDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT. stuart.pocock@lshtm.ac.uk
Timothy J Collier
Kimberley J Dandreo
Bianca L de Stavola
Marlene B Goldman
Leslie A Kalish
Linda E Kasten
Valerie A McCormack

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review current practice in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological research and to identify limitations.

designExamination of articles published in January 2001 that investigated associations between risk factors/exposure variables and disease events/measures in individuals.

settingEligible English language journals including all major epidemiological journals, all major general medical journals, and the two leading journals in cardiovascular disease and cancer.

main outcome measureEach article was evaluated with a standard proforma.

resultsWe found 73 articles in observational epidemiology; most were either cohort or case-control studies. Most studies looked at cancer and cardiovascular disease, even after we excluded specialty journals. Quantitative exposure variables predominated, which were mostly analysed as ordered categories but with little consistency or explanation regarding choice of categories. Sample selection, participant refusal, and data quality received insufficient attention in many articles. Statistical analyses commonly used odds ratios (38 articles) and hazard/rate ratios (23), with some inconsistent use of terminology. Confidence intervals were reported in most studies (68), though use of P values was less common (38). Few articles explained their choice of confounding variables; many performed subgroup analyses claiming an effect modifier, though interaction tests were rare. Several investigated multiple associations between exposure and outcome, increasing the likelihood of false positive claims. There was evidence of publication bias.

conclusionsThis survey raises concerns regarding inadequacies in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological publications in mainstream journals.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignEpidemiologic StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicEnvironmental ExposureHumansPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15469946
PMCPMC523109

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.