Abstract

BackgroundIt has previously been reported that many research articles fail to fulfill important criteria for statistical analyses, but, to date, these reports have not focused on public health problems. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting and use of statistical methods in articles analyzing the effect of unemployment on health.MethodsForty-one articles were identified and evaluated in terms of how they addressed 12 specified criteria.ResultsFor most of these criteria, the majority of articles were inadequate. These criteria were conformity with a linear gradient (100 % of the articles), validation of the statistical model (100 %), collinearity of independent variables (97 %), fitting procedure (93 %), goodness of fit test (78 %), selection of variables (68 % for the candidate model; 88 % for the final model), and interactions between independent variables (66 %). Fewer, but still alarmingly many articles, failed to fulfill the criteria coefficients presented in statistical models (48 %), coding of variables (34 %) and discussion of methodological concerns (24 %). There was a lack of explicit reporting of statistical significance/confidence intervals; 34 % of the articles only presented p-values as being above or below the significance level, and 42 % did not present confidence intervals. Events per variable was the only criterion met at an undoubtedly acceptable level (2.5 %).ConclusionsThere were critical methodological shortcomings in the reviewed studies. It is difficult to obtain unbiased estimates, but there clearly needs to be some improvement in the quality of documentation on the use and performance of statistical methods. A suggestion here is that journals not only demand that articles fulfill the criteria within the STROBE statement, but that they include additional criteria to decrease the risk of incorrect conclusions being drawn.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13690-015-0096-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • It has previously been reported that many research articles fail to fulfill important criteria for statistical analyses, but, to date, these reports have not focused on public health problems

  • This review investigated whether measures of significance were provided on the variable level as well as for the statistical model as a whole

  • Binary logistic regression (n = 21) was the most commonly used method for statistical analysis, and this was followed by methods based on other regression techniques (n = 18) such as fixed effects regression and multiple linear regression

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It has previously been reported that many research articles fail to fulfill important criteria for statistical analyses, but, to date, these reports have not focused on public health problems. Poor quality in the reporting and performance of statistical analyses has been reported numerous times in scientific papers [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. For many of the journals, including Lancet and Archives of Public Health, the STROBE (“Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology”) statement are used as the requirement for both issues related to the study design and the statistical analyses [24]. The STROBE initiative was developed to improve the quality of the reporting in observational studies, and journals requiring the STROBE statement are likely to be among the ones with highest demand related to the study design and the statistical analyses. The checklist is not sufficient for ensuring that most of the issues related to poor quality of statistical analyses are handled correctly

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call