Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
 arrow  Summary for Patients
space
 arrow  Summary for Patients (PDF)
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Related articles in Annals
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Müllner, M.
space
  arrow  Altman, D. G.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

BRIEF COMMUNICATION

Reporting on Statistical Methods To Adjust for Confounding: A Cross-Sectional Survey

right arrow Marcus Müllner, MD; Hugh Matthews, BSc, MBBS; and Douglas G. Altman, DSc

15 January 2002 | Volume 136 Issue 2 | Pages 122-126

Background: The use of complex statistical models to adjust for confounding is common in medical research.

Objective: To determine the frequency and adequacy of adjustment for confounding in medical articles.

Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: 34 scientific medical journals with a high impact factor.

Measurements: Frequency of reporting on methods used to adjust for confounding in 537 original research articles published in January 1998.

Results: Of the 537 articles, 169 specified that adjustment for confounding was used. In 1 paper in 10, it was unclear which statistical method was used or for which variables adjustment was made. In 45% of papers, it was not clear how multicategory or continuous variables were treated in the analysis. Inadequate reporting was less frequent if an author was affiliated with a department of statistics, epidemiology, or public health and if articles were published in journals with a high impact factor.

Conclusions: Details of methods used to adjust for confounding are frequently not reported in original research articles.

Author and Article Information
space

From BMJ London, and ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the BMJ staff, particularly Richard Smith, for providing the environment that enabled this research project.

Requests for Single Reprints: Marcus Müllner, MD, Universitätsklinik für Notfallmedizin, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20/6D, A-1090 Vienna, Austria; e-mail, marcus.muellner{at}univie.ac.at.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Müllner: Universitätsklinik für Notfallmedizin, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20/6D, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.

Mr. Matthews: Sandbanks, Graveney, Faversham, Kent ME13 9DJ, United Kingdom.

Dr. Altman: ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: M. Müllner, H. Matthews, D.G. Altman.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: M. Müllner, D.G. Altman.

Drafting of the article: M. Müllner, H. Matthews, D.G. Altman.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: M. Müllner, H. Matthews, D.G. Altman.

Final approval of the article: M. Müllner, H. Matthews, D.G. Altman.

Statistical expertise: M. Müllner, D.G. Altman.

Administrative, technical, or logistic support: M. Müllner.

Collection and assembly of data: M. Müllner, H. Matthews.


Related articles in Annals:

Summaries for Patients
Reporting on Statistical Methods To Adjust for Confounding
Annals 2002 136: I47. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
D. P. Lovell and T. Omori
Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay
Mutagenesis, May 1, 2008; 23(3): 171 - 182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Obstet GynecolHome page
R. T. Mikolajczyk, A. DiSilvesto, and J. Zhang
Evaluation of Logistic Regression Reporting in Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Literature
Obstet. Gynecol., February 1, 2008; 111(2): 413 - 419.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
J. P. Vandenbroucke, E. v. Elm, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gotzsche, C. D. Mulrow, S. J. Pocock, C. Poole, J. J. Schlesselman, M. Egger, and for the STROBE initiative
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration
Ann Intern Med, October 16, 2007; 147(8): W-163 - W-194.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
L Novack, A Jotkowitz, B Knyazer, and V Novack
Evidence-based medicine: assessment of knowledge of basic epidemiological and research methods among medical doctors
Postgrad. Med. J., December 1, 2006; 82(974): 817 - 822.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. Tello and P. E. Crewson
Hypothesis Testing II: Means
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 1 - 4.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
D. G. Altman, S. N. Goodman, and S. Schroter
How Statistical Expertise Is Used in Medical Research
JAMA, June 5, 2002; 287(21): 2817 - 2820.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 2002 by the American College of Physicians.