Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35504648›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Exploratory analyses in aetiologic research and considerations for assessment of credibility: mini-review of literature.

Kim Luijken, Olaf M Dekkers, Frits R Rosendaal, Rolf H H Groenwold

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Weight Loss: A Critical Review of Mechanisms.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. ESMO Guidance for Reporting Oncology real-World evidence (GROW).ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kim LuijkenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands k.luijken@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-5192-8368
Olaf M DekkersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Frits R RosendaalDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide considerations for reporting and interpretation that can improve assessment of the credibility of exploratory analyses in aetiologic research.

designMini-review of the literature and account of exploratory research principles.

settingThis study focuses on a particular type of causal research, namely aetiologic studies, which investigate the causal effect of one or multiple risk factors on a particular health outcome or disease. The mini review included aetiologic research articles published in four epidemiology journals in the first issue of 2021:

main outcome measuresNumber of exposure-outcome associations reported, grouped by type of analysis (main, sensitivity, and additional).

resultsThe journal articles reported many exposure-outcome associations: a mean number of 33 (range 1-120) exposure-outcome associations for the primary analysis, 30 (0-336) for sensitivity analyses, and 163 (0-1467) for additional analyses. Six considerations were discussed that are important in assessing the credibility of exploratory analyses: research problem, protocol, statistical criteria, interpretation of findings, completeness of reporting, and effect of exploratory findings on future causal research.

conclusionsBased on this mini-review, exploratory analyses in aetiologic research were not always reported properly. Six considerations for reporting of exploratory analyses in aetiologic research were provided to stimulate a discussion about their preferred handling and reporting. Researchers should take responsibility for the results of exploratory analyses by clearly reporting their exploratory nature and specifying which findings should be investigated in future research and how.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumans

Identifiers

PMID35504648
PMCPMC9062703
OpenAlexW4225301746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.