Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31258815›Full record

ArticleThe EPMA journal2019

Comparisons between protocols and publications of case-control studies: analysis of potential causes of non-reproducibility and recommendations for enhancing the quality of personalization in healthcare.

Haifeng Hou, Guoyong Ding, Xuan Zhao, Zixiu Meng, Jiangmin Xu, Zheng Guo, Yulu Zheng, Dong Li, Wei Wang

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The EPMA journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Haifeng Hou *1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Guoyong Ding *1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Xuan Zhao1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Zixiu Meng1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Jiangmin Xu3School of Health Sciences, Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, USA.
Zheng Guo2School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027 Australia.
Yulu Zheng2School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027 Australia.
Dong Li1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Wei Wang1School of Public Health, Taishan Medical University, Taian, China.
Taishan Medical University · CNEdith Cowan University · AUWinston-Salem State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelective reporting of results in published case-control studies has been widely suspected, but little comprehensive information on selective reporting is available with regard to case-control studies. We aimed to evaluate the concordance of findings between publications and the protocols of case-control studies and to assess the level of selective reporting of results in case-control studies.

methodsThe databases of Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify case-control study protocols published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. The numbers and characteristics of predefined exposures (or factors) were extracted from the protocols. The reported and unreported factors were both collected from the published studies and protocols. The frequency of selective reporting of results were estimated by identifying the discrepancies of factors between the protocols and the published studies. Study sample size and the extent of selective reporting of factors were measured by a Spearman correlation analysis.

resultsFourteen protocols with 24 published studies and 159 factors were identified, of which eight protocols (57.1%) had discrepancies between the publications and protocols. The prevalence of incomplete reporting in published case-control studies was 42.9% (6/14), with participant characteristics, anthropometric and laboratory measurement variables more likely to be unreported. A total of 16,835 cases and 56,049 controls were recruited in the 14 protocols of case-control studies (sample size ranges from 428 to 52,596 per study). Sample size had no statistical significance with selective reporting of results (

conclusionThe study protocols should be publicly available prior to the completion of case-control studies so that the potential bias can be assessed by the readers. Our findings highlight the need for investigators, peer reviewers, and readers to exercise increased awareness and scrutiny due to the undesirable practice of selective reporting of results in medical sciences causing the loss of potentially important information, thus impacting quality of personalized attitude in healthcare in the context of the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

Indexed as

Case-control studyPredictive preventive personalized medicineProtocolPublication biasQuality of healthcareSelective reporting of results

Identifiers

PMID31258815
PMCPMC6562015
OpenAlexW3003951015

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.