+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review

Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review

Annals of Epidemiology 18(10): 746-751

To systematically review observational studies on medical interventions to determine the quality of reporting of confounding. Articles on observational studies on medical interventions in five general medical journals and five epidemiological journals published between January 2004 and April 2007 were systematically reviewed. All relevant items pertaining to confounding bias were scored for each article. The overall quality of reporting was determined with an 8-point score. The MEDLINE search resulted in 2993 publications, and 174 (5.8%) articles were included in the analysis. In the majority of studies (>98%), the potential for confounding bias was reported. Details on the selection and inclusion of observed confounders were reported in 10% and 51%, respectively. The potential for unobserved confounding was reported in 60%, and 9% commented on the potential effect of such remaining confounding. The quality of reporting of confounding score was mediocre (a median score of 4 points; interquartile range 3 to 5), and scores were similar in all years. The quality of reporting of confounding in articles on observational medical intervention studies was poor. However, the STROBE statement for reporting of observational studies may considerably impact the reporting of such studies.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055052043

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18693038

DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.05.007

Related references

Frequency and impact of confounding by indication and healthy vaccinee bias in observational studies assessing influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review. Bmc Infectious Diseases 15(): 429-429, 2016

Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery 265(5): 901-909, 2016

Reporting Quality of Observational Studies in Plastic Surgery Needs Improvement: A Systematic Review. Annals of Plastic Surgery 76(5): 585-589, 2015

Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review. Systematic Reviews 3(): 70-70, 2014

Sources of Bias in and Reporting Quality in Diagnostic Accuracy Studies of FNAC: A Systematic Review and Analysis. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 138(Suppl 2): A135.1-A135, 2012

Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology 36(3): 666-676, 2007

Risk of bias and confounding of observational studies of Zika virus infection: A scoping review of research protocols. Plos One 12(7): E0180220-E0180220, 2017

What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Obesity 31(10): 1554-1559, 2007

Systematic review: bias in imaging studies - the effect of manipulating clinical context, recall bias and reporting intensity. European Radiology 22(3): 495-505, 2012

Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications. Plos One 8(5): E65442-E65442, 2014

Quality of development and reporting of dietetic intervention studies in primary care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 2017

Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry 200(6): 446-453, 2012

The regression effect as a neglected source of bias in nonrandomized intervention trials and systematic reviews of observational studies. Evaluation & the Health Professions 30(3): 254-265, 2007

Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2019, 2019

Confounding bias due to indication and severity in observational studies. Gaceta Sanitaria 25(2): 170-172, 2011