EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ 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

Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review



Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review



Systematic Reviews 3(): 70-70



Observational studies dominate the surgical literature. Statistical adjustment is an important strategy to account for confounders in observational studies. Research has shown that published articles are often poor in statistical quality, which may jeopardize their conclusions. The Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) guidelines have been published to help establish standards for statistical reporting.This study will seek to determine whether the quality of statistical adjustment and the reporting of these methods are adequate in surgical observational studies. We hypothesize that incomplete reporting will be found in all surgical observational studies, and that the quality and reporting of these methods will be of lower quality in surgical journals when compared with medical journals. Finally, this work will seek to identify predictors of high-quality reporting. This work will examine the top five general surgical and medical journals, based on a 5-year impact factor (2007-2012). All observational studies investigating an intervention related to an essential component area of general surgery (defined by the American Board of Surgery), with an exposure, outcome, and comparator, will be included in this systematic review. Essential elements related to statistical reporting and quality were extracted from the SAMPL guidelines and include domains such as intent of analysis, primary analysis, multiple comparisons, numbers and descriptive statistics, association and correlation analyses, linear regression, logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard analysis, analysis of variance, survival analysis, propensity analysis, and independent and correlated analyses. Each article will be scored as a proportion based on fulfilling criteria in relevant analyses used in the study. A logistic regression model will be built to identify variables associated with high-quality reporting. A comparison will be made between the scores of surgical observational studies published in medical versus surgical journals. Secondary outcomes will pertain to individual domains of analysis. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted. This study will explore the reporting and quality of statistical analyses in surgical observational studies published in the most referenced surgical and medical journals in 2013 and examine whether variables (including the type of journal) can predict high-quality reporting.

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

Accession: 055506662

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24972453

DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-70



Related references

Reporting of planned statistical methods in published surgical randomised trial protocols: a protocol for a methodological systematic review. Bmj Open 6(6): E011188-E011188, 2018

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

Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology 18(10): 746-751, 2008

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

What is the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation in adult trauma centres? Protocol for a systematic review. Bmj Open 8(5): E021750-E021750, 2018

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

A systematic review protocol for reporting deficiencies within surgical case series. Bmj Open 5(10): E008007-E008007, 2016

A systematic review of the quality of reporting of simulation studies about methods for the analysis of complex longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data. Quality of Life Research, 2018

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

The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: systematic review protocol. Primary Care Respiratory Journal 22(1): Ps1-Ps8, 2013

Enrollment and reporting practices in pediatric general surgical randomized clinical trials: A systematic review and observational analysis. Journal of Pediatric Surgery: -, 2018

Reporting quality of stepped wedge design randomized trials: a systematic review protocol. Clinical Epidemiology 8(): 261-266, 2016

A systematic review of the risk factors for suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt and completed suicide among children and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa between 1986 and 2018: protocol for a systematic review of observational studies. Systematic Reviews 7(1): 230-230, 2018

The reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging studies: a systematic review. Plos One 9(4): E94412-E94412, 2015

Anorexia nervosa and cancer: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Systematic Reviews 6(1): 137-137, 2018