Dataset Information

Exploratory analyses in aetiologic research and considerations for assessment of credibility: mini-review of literature.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To provide considerations for reporting and interpretation that can improve assessment of the credibility of exploratory analyses in aetiologic research.

Design

Mini-review of the literature and account of exploratory research principles.

Setting

This study focuses on a particular type of causal research, namely aetiologic studies, which investigate the causal effect of one or multiple risk factors on a particular health outcome or disease. The mini review included aetiologic research articles published in four epidemiology journals in the first issue of 2021: American Journal of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, European Journal of Epidemiology, and International Journal of Epidemiology, specifically focusing on observational studies of causal risk factors of diseases.

Main outcome measures

Number of exposure-outcome associations reported, grouped by type of analysis (main, sensitivity, and additional).

Results

The journal articles reported many exposure-outcome associations: a mean number of 33 (range 1-120) exposure-outcome associations for the primary analysis, 30 (0-336) for sensitivity analyses, and 163 (0-1467) for additional analyses. Six considerations were discussed that are important in assessing the credibility of exploratory analyses: research problem, protocol, statistical criteria, interpretation of findings, completeness of reporting, and effect of exploratory findings on future causal research.

Conclusions

Based on this mini-review, exploratory analyses in aetiologic research were not always reported properly. Six considerations for reporting of exploratory analyses in aetiologic research were provided to stimulate a discussion about their preferred handling and reporting. Researchers should take responsibility for the results of exploratory analyses by clearly reporting their exploratory nature and specifying which findings should be investigated in future research and how.

SUBMITTER: Luijken K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9062703 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploratory analyses in aetiologic research and considerations for assessment of credibility: mini-review of literature.

Luijken Kim K Dekkers Olaf M OM Rosendaal Frits R FR Groenwold Rolf H H RHH

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20220503

<h4>Objective</h4>To provide considerations for reporting and interpretation that can improve assessment of the credibility of exploratory analyses in aetiologic research.<h4>Design</h4>Mini-review of the literature and account of exploratory research principles.<h4>Setting</h4>This study focuses on a particular type of causal research, namely aetiologic studies, which investigate the causal effect of one or multiple risk factors on a particular health outcome or disease. The mini review include ...[more]

PMID: 35504648

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe REDUCE-RISK trial was set up to compare the effectiveness of weekly subcutaneously administered methotrexate with daily oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine in low-risk Crohn disease (CD) or subcutaneously administered adalimumab (ADA) in high-risk CD in a pediatric population (age 6-17 years).ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to perform a systematic review to provide input into the research protocol to gather the necessary information to improve the performance of an evidence-based economic evaluation when the trial is finished.MethodsThe Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, websites of HTA institutes, CRD's National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE (OVID), and Embase databases were consulted to retrieve (reviews of) relevant economic evaluations. Studies were eligible if they included a pediatric or adult population with inflammatory bowel diseases (CD and ulcerative colitis [UC]) treated with ADA (Humira). There were no restrictions on the comparator. Only economic evaluations expressing outcomes in life years gained or quality-adjusted life years gained were selected.ResultsA total of 12 primary studies were identified. None of these studies included a pediatric population because of a lack of supporting trials. The economic evaluations identified in our systematic review indicate that ADA is an appropriate intervention for inclusion in such a trial. From a health economic point of view, it is important to make an incremental analysis comparing such an intervention with standard care and not immediately versus another (expensive) biological treatment. Information on the impact of children's school attendance and parents' productivity is currently lacking in economic evaluations, and none of the underlying trials measured quality of life (QoL) using a generic utility instrument.ConclusionsThe review of the economic literature on ADA for the treatment of patients with CD supports the performance of a trial with biologicals in pediatric patients, including making a distinction according to disease severity. Conducting an economic literature review enabled us to decide which variables should be added to the research protocol from an economic point of view. Measurements for children's and parents' QoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaires), children's school attendance, and parents' productivity (WPAI-CD-CG questionnaire) were added to the research protocol. This will provide support for the calculation of the cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated in the REDUCE-RISK trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02852694; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02852694.

Project description:PurposeThere is a lack of agreement regarding the types of lesions and clinical conditions that should be included in the term "geographic atrophy." Varied and conflicting views prevail throughout the literature and are currently used by retinal experts and other health care professionals.MethodsWe reviewed the nominal definition of the term "geographic atrophy" and conducted a search of the ophthalmologic literature focusing on preceding terminologies and the first citations of the term "geographic atrophy" secondary to age-related macular degeneration.ResultsAccording to the nominal definition, the term "geography" stands for a detailed description of the surface features of a specific region, indicating its relative position. However, it does not necessarily imply that the borders of the region must be sharply demarcated or related to any anatomical structures. The term "geographical areas of atrophy" was initially cited in the 1960s in the ophthalmologic literature in the context of uveitic eye disease and shortly thereafter also for the description of variants of "senile macular degeneration." However, no direct explanation could be found in the literature as to why the terms "geographical" and "geographic" were chosen. Presumably the terms were used as the atrophic regions resembled the map of a continent or well-defined country borders on thematic geographical maps. With the evolution of the terminology, the commonly used adjunct "of the retinal pigment epithelium" was frequently omitted and solely the term "geographic atrophy" prevailed for the nonexudative late-stage of age-related macular degeneration itself. Along with the quantification of atrophic areas, based on different imaging modalities and the use of both manual and semiautomated approaches, various and inconsistent definitions for the minimal lesion diameter or size of atrophic lesions have also emerged.ConclusionReconsideration of the application of the term "geographic atrophy" in the context of age-related macular degeneration seems to be prudent given ongoing advances in multimodal retinal imaging technology with identification of various phenotypic characteristics, and the observation of atrophy development in eyes under antiangiogenic therapy.

Project description:BackgroundSubgroup analyses are widely used to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. However, there is a limited investigation of the quality of prespecified and reported subgroup analyses in stroke trials. This study evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses in stroke trials.Methods and analysisWe searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from inception to 24 March 2021. Three reviewers screened, extracted, and analyzed the data from the publications. Primary publications of stroke trials that reported at least one subgroup effect and had published corresponding study protocols were included. The Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) was used to examine the quality of the subgroup effects reported, with each subgroup effect assigned a credibility rating ranging from very low to high. Subgroup effects with two or more "definitely no" responses received a low credibility rating. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials version 2.ResultsSeventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and reported a combined total of 647 subgroup effects. The median sample size was 1264 (interquartile range (IQR): 380-3876), and the median number of subgroups prespecified in the protocol was 6 (IQR: 2-10). Sixty-one (82%) studies used the univariate test of interaction. Of the total 647 subgroup effects reported in these studies, 319 (49%) were reported in acute stroke trials, while 423 (65%) had low credibility.ConclusionThe quality of subgroup analysis reporting in stroke trials remains poor. More effort is needed to train trialists on the best methods for designing and performing subgroup analyses, and how to report the results.Trial registration numberWe prospectively registered the review with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42020223133).

Project description:IntroductionPublic health investigations, including research, in refugee populations are necessary to inform evidence-based interventions and care. The unique challenges refugees face (displacement, limited political protections, economic hardship) can make them especially vulnerable to harm, burden, or undue influence. Acute survival needs, fear of stigma or persecution, and history of trauma may present challenges to ensuring meaningful informed consent and establishing trust. We examined the recently published literature to understand the application of ethics principles in investigations involving refugees.MethodsWe conducted a preliminary review of refugee health literature (research and non-research data collections) published from 2015 through 2018 available in PubMed. Article inclusion criteria were: participants were refugees, topic was health-related, and methods used primary data collection. Information regarding type of investigation, methods, and reported ethics considerations was abstracted.ResultsWe examined 288 articles. Results indicated 33% of investigations were conducted before resettlement, during the displacement period (68% of these were in refugee camps). Common topics included mental health (48%) and healthcare access (8%). The majority (87%) of investigations obtained consent. Incentives were provided less frequently (23%). Most authors discussed the ways in which community stakeholders were engaged (91%), yet few noted whether refugee representatives had an opportunity to review investigational protocols (8%). Cultural considerations were generally limited to gender and religious norms, and 13% mentioned providing some form of post-investigation support.ConclusionsOur analysis is a preliminary assessment of the application of ethics principles reported within the recently published refugee health literature. From this analysis, we have proposed a list of best practices, which include stakeholder engagement, respect for cultural norms, and post-study support. Investigations conducted among refugees require additional diligence to ensure respect for and welfare of the participants. Development of a refugee-specific ethics framework with ethics and refugee health experts that addresses the need for stakeholder involvement, appropriate incentive use, protocol review, and considerations of cultural practices may help guide future investigations in this population.

Dataset Information

Exploratory analyses in aetiologic research and considerations for assessment of credibility: mini-review of literature.

Objective

Design

Setting

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Exploratory analyses in aetiologic research and considerations for assessment of credibility: mini-review of literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets