ArticleAnnals of dermatology2020
Pervasive Misclassification and Misconception of Study Designs in Asian Dermatology Journals Listed in Science Citation Index-Expanded.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Suggestion of more suitable study designs and the corresponding reporting guidelines in articles published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions from 2021 to September 2022: a descriptive study.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisclassification of study designs of journals can hinder the readers from assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the study and evaluating the applicability of the study in the real-world setting. However, it seems that it is common for authors to neglect to classify the study design.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the classification of study designs and examine the common errors.
methodsThis descriptive study analyzed four Asian dermatology journals listed in the science citation index expanded from January 2018 to December 2018. We investigated discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs. Design Algorithm for Medical Literature on Intervention (DAMI) was used to determine the actual study design.
resultsOf the 177 papers analyzed, only 72 articles (40.7%) revealed their study design and among them, 23 articles (32.0%) showed discrepancies between the author-reported and the actual study designs. Case-control studies were the most commonly misclassified study designs by authors.
conclusionThere were considerable differences between the author-reported study design and the actual study design in Asian dermatology journals. Proper classification of study designs by the authors is essential to strengthen evidencebased medicine.
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.