Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288628›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2017

Assessing the reporting of categorised quantitative variables in observational epidemiological studies.

Onkabetse V Mabikwa, Darren C Greenwood, Paul D Baxter, Sarah J Fleming

Erratum issuedAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Heterogeneous associations of polyomaviruses and herpesviruses with allergy-related phenotypes in childhood.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Ideal Cardiovascular Health and Adiposity: Implications in Youth.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Onkabetse V MabikwaDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, LICAMM, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. umovm@leeds.ac.uk.
Darren C GreenwoodDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, LICAMM, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Paul D BaxterDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, LICAMM, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Sarah J FlemingSection of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, LICAP, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne aspect to consider when reporting results of observational studies in epidemiology is how quantitative risk factors are analysed. The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines recommend that researchers describe how they handle quantitative variables when analysing data. For categorised quantitative variables, the authors are required to provide reasons and justifications informing their practice. We investigated and assessed the practices and reporting of categorised quantitative variables in epidemiology.

methodsThe assessment was based on five medical journals that publish epidemiological research. Observational studies published between April and June 2015 and investigating the relationships between quantitative exposures (or risk factors) and the outcomes were considered for assessment. A standard form was used to collect the data, and the reporting patterns amongst eligible studies were quantified and described.

resultsOut of 61 articles assessed for eligibility, 23 observational studies were included in the assessment. Categorisation of quantitative exposures occurred in 61% of these studies and reasons informing the practice were rarely provided. Only one article explained the choice of categorisation in the analysis. Transformation of quantitative exposures into four or five groups was common and dominant amongst studies using equally spaced categories. Dichotomisation was not popular; the practice featured in one article. Overall, the majority (86%) of the studies preferred ordered or arbitrary group categories. Other criterions used to decide categorical boundaries were based on established guidelines such as consensus statements and WHO standards.

conclusionCategorisation of continuous variables remains a dominant practice in epidemiological studies. The reasons informing the practice of categorisation within published work are limited and remain unknown in most articles. The existing STROBE guidelines could provide stronger recommendations on reporting quantitative risk factors in epidemiology.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceObservational Studies as TopicResearch DesignEpidemiologic StudiesGuidelines as TopicHumansRisk FactorsCategorisationObservational studiesQuantitative or continuous variablesSTOBE guidelines

Identifiers

PMID28288628
PMCPMC5348776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.