Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study.

Clicks: 320
ID: 75048
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #23 of 75 articles by views in journal of clinical epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
When reporting observational studies, authors should explicitly discuss the potential for confounding and other biases, but it is unclear to what extent this is carried out within the psychiatric field.We reviewed a random sample of 120 articles in the five psychiatric specialty journals with the highest 5-year impact factor in 2015-2018. We evaluated how confounding and bias was considered in the reporting of the discussion and abstract and assessed the relationship with yearly citations.The term "confounding" was explicitly mentioned in the abstract or discussion in 66 articles (55.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1-63.6) and the term "bias" in 68 articles (56.7%; 95% CI: 47.7-65.2). The authors of 25 articles (20.8%; 95% CI: 14.5-28.9) acknowledged unadjusted confounders. With one exception (0.8%, 95% CI: 0.0-4.6), authors never expressed any caution, limitation, or uncertainty in relation to confounding or other bias in their conclusions or in the abstract. Articles acknowledging nonadjusted confounders were not less frequently cited than articles that did not (median 7.9 vs. 5.6 citations per year, P = 0.03).Confounding is overall inadequately addressed in the reporting and bias is often ignored in the interpretation of high-impact observational research in psychiatry.
Reference Key
munkholm2019considerationjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Munkholm, Klaus;Faurholt-Jepsen, Maria;Ioannidis, John P A;Hemkens, Lars G;
Journal journal of clinical epidemiology
Year 2019
DOI
S0895-4356(19)30765-6
URL
Keywords
Bias psychiatry bibliometrics confounding observational studies research reporting

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.