Observational studyBMC health services research2017
Assessing the reporting of categorised quantitative variables in observational epidemiological studies.
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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Identifying communities at elevated risk of hepatitis C infection in Los Angeles County: an ecological study using machine learning.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Bidirectional associations between smart device use and body mass index among children aged 3 to 5 years: a longitudinal study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- Multilevel predictors categorization for post-CABG atrial fibrillation prediction.Biology methods & protocols · 2026Article
- Perceived Social Isolation and Fentanyl Use Among Adults Who Inject Drugs in Rural Kentucky.Social work in public health · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of ASCVD, SCORE-2, and HEARTS risk scores in Colombian adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: stratification, concordance, and associated factors.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of the Models Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Predictors in Categorical and Continuous Forms.Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Article
- Researchers in rheumatology should avoid categorization of continuous predictor variables.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Resilience After COVID-19: A Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical nursing research · 2023Article
- Associations of timing of physical activity with all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a prospective cohort study.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Examining the U-shaped relationship of sleep duration and systolic blood pressure with risk of cardiovascular events using a novel recursive gradient scanning model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Tumor immune cell clustering and its association with survival in African American women with ovarian cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Biologically grounded scientific methods: The challenges ahead for combating epidemics.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2021Review
- 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 · 2021Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in the Statistical Analysis of Multiplex Immunofluorescence Data.Cancers · 2021Review
- AutoScore: A Machine Learning-Based Automatic Clinical Score Generator and Its Application to Mortality Prediction Using Electronic Health Records.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Prediagnostic serum concentrations of organochlorine pesticides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A nested case-control study in the Norwegian Janus Serum Bank Cohort.Environmental research · 2020Article
- A novel approach to determine two optimal cut-points of a continuous predictor with a U-shaped relationship to hazard ratio in survival data: simulation and application.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Ideal Cardiovascular Health and Adiposity: Implications in Youth.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.