Suppr超能文献

注意你的措辞:兽医观察性研究中因果措辞使用情况的探讨。

Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research.

作者信息

Sargeant Jan M, O'Connor Annette M, Totton Sarah C, Vriezen Ellen R

机构信息

Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

出版信息

Front Vet Sci. 2022 Oct 24;9:1004801. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1004801. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an "exposure") and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that the aim is identify causal relationships. Causal inference from observational studies may be appropriate when an exposure-outcome of interest is identified, causal reasoning is used to identify confounders, confounders are adequately controlled, and theoretical issues, such as temporality, are considered. If these conditions are not met, causal inference cannot be made in an observational study. The objective of our study was to explore the use of causal language in veterinary observational studies, and to compare the use of causal language between studies that appear to be predictive or associational in purpose vs. those that appear to be exploring causal relationships. The dataset comprised 200 observational studies in veterinary species published between 2020 and 2022. The majority (117 out of 200) were cross-sectional studies. There were 48 studies that described an exposure-outcome of interest, and we considered these studies to be exploring potential causal relationships; of note, this liberal categorization would be anticipated to overestimate the proportion of studies suitably designed for causal inference. Overall, 172 studies (86%) used causal wording in at least one section of the article. Causal language was used in 128/152 (84%) of studies exploring predictions or associations; this language implies causation when it is not appropriate to do so. In studies designed such that causal inference might be possible, 44/48 (92%) used causal language in one or more sections. There were no substantive differences in the use of causal wording between observational study designs, exposure types, or whether the first author's affiliation was a country in which English is an official language. There is a need for authors of veterinary observational studies to explicitly state the purpose of the study (associational, predictive, or causal), and to use causal wording appropriately based on the aim of the study.

摘要

开展观察性研究可以预测结果,或确定一项干预措施或风险因素(一种“暴露”)与一个结果之间的关联。然而,观察性研究的最终目标通常是确定那些可以加以操控以改善结果的暴露因素,这意味着其目的是识别因果关系。当确定了感兴趣的暴露-结果,运用因果推理来识别混杂因素,充分控制了混杂因素,并考虑了诸如时间顺序等理论问题时,从观察性研究中进行因果推断可能是合适的。如果不满足这些条件,就无法在观察性研究中进行因果推断。我们研究的目的是探讨因果性语言在兽医观察性研究中的使用情况,并比较目的看似为预测性或关联性的研究与那些看似在探索因果关系的研究在因果性语言使用上的差异。该数据集包括2020年至2022年间发表的200项针对兽医物种的观察性研究。其中大多数(200项中的117项)是横断面研究。有48项研究描述了感兴趣的暴露-结果,我们认为这些研究在探索潜在的因果关系;值得注意的是,这种宽泛的分类预计会高估适合进行因果推断的研究比例。总体而言,172项研究(86%)在文章的至少一个部分使用了因果措辞。在探索预测或关联的152项研究中的128项(84%)使用了因果性语言;这种语言在不适合的情况下暗示了因果关系。在设计得有可能进行因果推断的研究中,48项中的44项(92%)在一个或多个部分使用了因果性语言。在观察性研究设计、暴露类型,或者第一作者所属机构是否位于英语为官方语言的国家之间,因果措辞的使用没有实质性差异。兽医观察性研究的作者有必要明确说明研究目的(关联性、预测性或因果性),并根据研究目的恰当地使用因果措辞。

相似文献

2
What question are we trying to answer? Embracing causal inference.我们试图回答什么问题?拥抱因果推断。
Front Vet Sci. 2024 May 21;11:1402981. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1402981. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验