Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/18422
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKavvoura, F. K.en
dc.contributor.authorLiberopoulos, G.en
dc.contributor.authorIoannidis, J. P.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-24T18:52:39Z-
dc.date.available2015-11-24T18:52:39Z-
dc.identifier.issn1549-1676-
dc.identifier.urihttps://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/18422-
dc.rightsDefault Licence-
dc.subject*Bias (Epidemiology)en
dc.subjectEpidemiologic Methodsen
dc.subjectPubMeden
dc.subject*Publication Biasen
dc.subject*Risken
dc.subjectRisk Factorsen
dc.titleSelection in reported epidemiological risks: an empirical assessmenten
heal.typejournalArticle-
heal.type.enJournal articleen
heal.type.elΆρθρο Περιοδικούel
heal.identifier.primary10.1371/journal.pmed.0040079-
heal.identifier.secondaryhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341129-
heal.identifier.secondaryhttp://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040079&representation=PDF-
heal.languageen-
heal.accesscampus-
heal.recordProviderΠανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικήςel
heal.publicationDate2007-
heal.abstractBACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies may be subject to selective reporting, but empirical evidence thereof is limited. We empirically evaluated the extent of selection of significant results and large effect sizes in a large sample of recent articles. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We evaluated 389 articles of epidemiological studies that reported, in their respective abstracts, at least one relative risk for a continuous risk factor in contrasts based on median, tertile, quartile, or quintile categorizations. We examined the proportion and correlates of reporting statistically significant and nonsignificant results in the abstract and whether the magnitude of the relative risks presented (coined to be consistently > or =1.00) differs depending on the type of contrast used for the risk factor. In 342 articles (87.9%), > or =1 statistically significant relative risk was reported in the abstract, while only 169 articles (43.4%) reported > or =1 statistically nonsignificant relative risk in the abstract. Reporting of statistically significant results was more common with structured abstracts, and was less common in US-based studies and in cancer outcomes. Among 50 randomly selected articles in which the full text was examined, a median of nine (interquartile range 5-16) statistically significant and six (interquartile range 3-16) statistically nonsignificant relative risks were presented (p = 0.25). Paradoxically, the smallest presented relative risks were based on the contrasts of extreme quintiles; on average, the relative risk magnitude was 1.41-, 1.42-, and 1.36-fold larger in contrasts of extreme quartiles, extreme tertiles, and above-versus-below median values, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Published epidemiological investigations almost universally highlight significant associations between risk factors and outcomes. For continuous risk factors, investigators selectively present contrasts between more extreme groups, when relative risks are inherently lower.en
heal.journalNamePLoS Meden
heal.journalTypepeer-reviewed-
heal.fullTextAvailabilityTRUE-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ( Ανοικτά)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Kavvoura-2007-Selection in reporte.pdf349.71 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons