Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29782045›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2018

Revisiting the Table 2 fallacy: A motivating example examining preeclampsia and preterm birth.

Gretchen Bandoli, Kristin Palmsten, Christina D Chambers, Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski, Rebecca J Baer, Caroline A Thompson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A scoping review of Table 2 fallacy in the oral health literature.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gretchen BandoliDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2167-8921
Kristin PalmstenHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0134-6228
Christina D ChambersDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Laura L Jelliffe-PawlowskiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rebecca J BaerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8485-1977
Caroline A ThompsonGraduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
University of California San Diego · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USHealthPartners · USSutter Health · US

Funding

UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteKL2TR001444 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DEPP, COLIN A. · 2015 to 2024
$15.4M
UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteTL1TR001443 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DEPP, COLIN A. · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
Treatment Initiation for New Episodes of Depression in Pregnant WomenR01HD100579 · NICHD · HEALTHPARTNERS INSTITUTE · PI PALMSTEN, KRISTIN · 2021 to 2025
$3.1M
Oral Corticosteroid Use During Pregnancy and Risk for Preterm BirthR00HD082412 · NICHD · HEALTHPARTNERS INSTITUTE · PI PALMSTEN, KRISTIN · 2017 to 2019
$716k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001444NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001443NICHD NIH HHS R00 HD082412NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD100579
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA "Table Fallacy," as coined by Westreich and Greenland, reports multiple adjusted effect estimates from a single model. This practice, which remains common in published literature, can be problematic when different types of effect estimates are presented together in a single table. The purpose of this paper is to quantitatively illustrate this potential for misinterpretation with an example estimating the effects of preeclampsia on preterm birth.

methodsWe analysed a retrospective population-based cohort of 2 963 888 singleton births in California between 2007 and 2012. We performed a modified Poisson regression to calculate the total effect of preeclampsia on the risk of PTB, adjusting for previous preterm birth. pregnancy alcohol abuse, maternal education, and maternal socio-demographic factors (Model 1). In subsequent models, we report the total effects of previous preterm birth, alcohol abuse, and education on the risk of PTB, comparing and contrasting the controlled direct effects, total effects, and confounded effect estimates, resulting from Model 1.

resultsThe effect estimate for previous preterm birth (a controlled direct effect in Model 1) increased 10% when estimated as a total effect. The risk ratio for alcohol abuse, biased due to an uncontrolled confounder in Model 1, was reduced by 23% when adjusted for drug abuse. The risk ratio for maternal education, solely a predictor of the outcome, was essentially unchanged.

conclusionsReporting multiple effect estimates from a single model may lead to misinterpretation and lack of reproducibility. This example highlights the need for careful consideration of the types of effects estimated in statistical models.

Indexed as

AdultCaliforniaFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal ExposurePre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePremature BirthRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSubstance-Related Disordersmeasures of effectperinatal epidemiologypreterm birthTable 2 Fallacy

Identifiers

PMID29782045
PMCPMC6103824
OpenAlexW2803848306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.