著名健康期刊中的效应量报告：以比值比为例的案例研究。

Effect size reporting among prominent health journals: a case study of odds ratios.

作者信息

Chu Brian, Liu Michael, Leas Eric C, Althouse Benjamin M, Ayers John W

机构信息

Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Dec 10;26(4):184. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111569.

DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111569

PMID:33303479

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8311093/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of statistical reporting that informs medical and public health practice has generated extensive debate, but no studies have evaluated the frequency or accuracy of effect size (the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) reporting in prominent health journals.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effect size reporting practices in prominent health journals using the case study of ORs.

DESIGN

Articles published in the (), (), () and from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2019 mentioning the term 'odds ratio' in all searchable fields were obtained using PubMed. One hundred randomly selected articles that reported original research using ORs were sampled per journal for in-depth analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We report prevalence of articles using ORs, reporting effect sizes from ORs (reporting the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) and reporting correct effect sizes.

RESULTS

The proportion of articles using ORs in the past decade declined in and , remained similar in and increased in PLOS One, with 6124 articles in total. Twenty-four per cent (95% CI 20% to 28%) of articles reported the at least one effect size arising from an OR. Among articles reporting any effect size, 57% (95% CI 47% to 67%) did so incorrectly. Taken together, 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%) of articles included a correct effect size interpretation of an OR. Articles that used ORs in more frequently reported the effect size (36%, 95% CI 27% to 45%), when compared with (26%, 95% CI 17.5% to 34.7%), (22%, 95% CI 13.9% to 30.2%) and (10%, 95% CI 3.9% to 16.0%), but the probability of a correct interpretation did not statistically differ between the four journals (χ=0.56, p=0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Articles that used ORs in prominent journals frequently omitted presenting the effect size of their predictor variables. When reported, the presented effect size was usually incorrect. When used, ORs should be paired with accurate effect size interpretations. New editorial and research reporting standards to improve effect size reporting and its accuracy should be considered.

摘要

背景

为医学和公共卫生实践提供信息的统计报告准确性引发了广泛争论，但尚无研究评估知名健康期刊中效应量（作为预测变量变化函数的结果变化幅度）报告的频率或准确性。

目的

以比值比为例，评估知名健康期刊中效应量的报告情况。

设计

通过PubMed获取2010年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间发表在《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）、《美国医学会杂志》（JAMA）、《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）和《公共科学图书馆·综合》（PLOS One）上，在所有可搜索字段中提及“比值比”一词的文章。每种期刊随机抽取100篇报告使用比值比的原创研究的文章进行深入分析。

主要结局和测量指标

我们报告使用比值比的文章的患病率、报告比值比的效应量（报告作为预测变量变化函数的结果变化幅度）以及报告正确效应量的情况。

结果

在过去十年中，《柳叶刀》和《美国医学会杂志》中使用比值比的文章比例下降，《英国医学杂志》中保持相似，而《公共科学图书馆·综合》中有所增加，总共6124篇文章。24%（95%CI 20%至28%）的文章报告了至少一个由比值比产生的效应量。在报告任何效应量的文章中，57%（95%CI 47%至67%）的报告有误。总体而言，10%（95%CI 7%至13%）的文章对比值比进行了正确的效应量解读。与《英国医学杂志》（26%，95%CI 17.5%至34.7%）、《柳叶刀》（22%，95%CI 13.9%至30.2%）和《美国医学会杂志》（10%，95%CI 3.9%至16.0%）相比，《公共科学图书馆·综合》中使用比值比的文章更频繁地报告效应量（36%，95%CI 27%至45%），但四种期刊之间正确解读的概率在统计学上没有差异（χ²=0.56，p=0.90）。