pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Selection in reported epidemiological risks: an empirical assessment - PubMed

Selection in reported epidemiological risks: an empirical assessment

Fotini K Kavvoura et al. PLoS Med. 2007 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological studies may be subject to selective reporting, but empirical evidence thereof is limited. We empirically evaluated the extent of selection of significant results and large effect sizes in a large sample of recent articles.

Methods and findings: We evaluated 389 articles of epidemiological studies that reported, in their respective abstracts, at least one relative risk for a continuous risk factor in contrasts based on median, tertile, quartile, or quintile categorizations. We examined the proportion and correlates of reporting statistically significant and nonsignificant results in the abstract and whether the magnitude of the relative risks presented (coined to be consistently > or =1.00) differs depending on the type of contrast used for the risk factor. In 342 articles (87.9%), > or =1 statistically significant relative risk was reported in the abstract, while only 169 articles (43.4%) reported > or =1 statistically nonsignificant relative risk in the abstract. Reporting of statistically significant results was more common with structured abstracts, and was less common in US-based studies and in cancer outcomes. Among 50 randomly selected articles in which the full text was examined, a median of nine (interquartile range 5-16) statistically significant and six (interquartile range 3-16) statistically nonsignificant relative risks were presented (p = 0.25). Paradoxically, the smallest presented relative risks were based on the contrasts of extreme quintiles; on average, the relative risk magnitude was 1.41-, 1.42-, and 1.36-fold larger in contrasts of extreme quartiles, extreme tertiles, and above-versus-below median values, respectively (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Published epidemiological investigations almost universally highlight significant associations between risk factors and outcomes. For continuous risk factors, investigators selectively present contrasts between more extreme groups, when relative risks are inherently lower.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow Diagram for Studies Included or Excluded from the Analyses According to Eligibility Criteria
Figure 2
Figure 2. Box Plots for Relative Risks for Different Contrasts of the Values of the Postulated Risk Factor

All relative risks have been coined to be ≥1.00 for consistency.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Poole C. Low p-values or narrow confidence intervals: Which are more durable? Epidemiology. 2001;12:291–294. - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: The problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:135–146. 146–148. discussion. - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–378. - PubMed
    1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872. - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–286. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms