ReviewMedicine2016
Quality Reporting of Multivariable Regression Models in Observational Studies: Review of a Representative Sample of Articles Published in Biomedical Journals.
Review in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of Smoking Cessation Among College Students in a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2019Trial
- Language and Demographic Disparities in Social Needs and Referral Preferences in the Pediatric ED.Academic pediatrics · 2026Observational
- The prevalence and predictors of obstructive sleep apnea in patients undergoing bariatric surgery in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Associations of dietary choline intake and kidney function with hyperuricemia in Chinese children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Replication and Reproducibility and the Self-Correction of Science: What CanJID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2023Article
- How to write statistical analysis section in medical research.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2022Article
- Maximum Accuracy Machine Learning Statistical Analysis-A Novel Approach.Cancer treatment and research · 2022Article
- Article
- Methods for the Selection of Covariates in Nutritional Epidemiology Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Review.Current developments in nutrition · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- MicroRNAs in Coronary Heart Disease: Ready to Enter the Clinical Arena?BioMed research international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Controlling for confounders is a crucial step in analytical observational studies, and multivariable models are widely used as statistical adjustment techniques. However, the validation of the assumptions of the multivariable regression models (MRMs) should be made clear in scientific reporting. The objective of this study is to review the quality of statistical reporting of the most commonly used MRMs (logistic, linear, and Cox regression) that were applied in analytical observational studies published between 2003 and 2014 by journals indexed in MEDLINE.Review of a representative sample of articles indexed in MEDLINE (n = 428) with observational design and use of MRMs (logistic, linear, and Cox regression). We assessed the quality of reporting about: model assumptions and goodness-of-fit, interactions, sensitivity analysis, crude and adjusted effect estimate, and specification of more than 1 adjusted model.The tests of underlying assumptions or goodness-of-fit of the MRMs used were described in 26.2% (95% CI: 22.0-30.3) of the articles and 18.5% (95% CI: 14.8-22.1) reported the interaction analysis. Reporting of all items assessed was higher in articles published in journals with a higher impact factor.A low percentage of articles indexed in MEDLINE that used multivariable techniques provided information demonstrating rigorous application of the model selected as an adjustment method. Given the importance of these methods to the final results and conclusions of observational studies, greater rigor is required in reporting the use of MRMs in the scientific literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.