Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17341129›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2007

Selection in reported epidemiological risks: an empirical assessment.

Fotini K Kavvoura, George Liberopoulos, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers.Journal of environmental science and health. Part. B, Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes · 2016
    Pooled it
  9. Knowledge integration in cancer: current landscape and future prospects.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2013
    Pooled it
  10. Nutritively sweetened beverage consumption and body weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized experiments.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2011
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fotini K KavvouraClinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
George Liberopoulos
John P A Ioannidis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidemiological studies may be subject to selective reporting, but empirical evidence thereof is limited. We empirically evaluated the extent of selection of significant results and large effect sizes in a large sample of recent articles. METHODS AND

findingsWe evaluated 389 articles of epidemiological studies that reported, in their respective abstracts, at least one relative risk for a continuous risk factor in contrasts based on median, tertile, quartile, or quintile categorizations. We examined the proportion and correlates of reporting statistically significant and nonsignificant results in the abstract and whether the magnitude of the relative risks presented (coined to be consistently > or =1.00) differs depending on the type of contrast used for the risk factor. In 342 articles (87.9%), > or =1 statistically significant relative risk was reported in the abstract, while only 169 articles (43.4%) reported > or =1 statistically nonsignificant relative risk in the abstract. Reporting of statistically significant results was more common with structured abstracts, and was less common in US-based studies and in cancer outcomes. Among 50 randomly selected articles in which the full text was examined, a median of nine (interquartile range 5-16) statistically significant and six (interquartile range 3-16) statistically nonsignificant relative risks were presented (p = 0.25). Paradoxically, the smallest presented relative risks were based on the contrasts of extreme quintiles; on average, the relative risk magnitude was 1.41-, 1.42-, and 1.36-fold larger in contrasts of extreme quartiles, extreme tertiles, and above-versus-below median values, respectively (p < 0.001).

conclusionsPublished epidemiological investigations almost universally highlight significant associations between risk factors and outcomes. For continuous risk factors, investigators selectively present contrasts between more extreme groups, when relative risks are inherently lower.

Indexed as

BiasPublication BiasRiskEpidemiologic MethodsPubMedRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID17341129
PMCPMC1808481

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.