Cargando…

A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals

BACKGROUND: Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals. METHODS: Articles publi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liao, Huimin, Lynn, Henry S
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-87
_version_ 1782188182700294144
author Liao, Huimin
Lynn, Henry S
author_facet Liao, Huimin
Lynn, Henry S
author_sort Liao, Huimin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals. METHODS: Articles published in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology and the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine were reviewed. Five categories of methods were identified whereby variables were selected using: A - bivariate analyses; B - multivariable analysis; e.g. stepwise or individual significance testing of model coefficients; C - first bivariate analyses, followed by multivariable analysis; D - bivariate analyses or multivariable analysis; and E - other criteria like prior knowledge or personal judgment. RESULTS: Among the 287 articles that reported using variable selection methods, 6%, 26%, 30%, 21%, and 17% were in categories A through E, respectively. One hundred sixty-three studies selected variables using bivariate analyses, 80% (130/163) via multiple significance testing at the 5% alpha-level. Of the 219 multivariable analyses, 97 (44%) used stepwise procedures, 89 (41%) tested individual regression coefficients, but 33 (15%) did not mention how variables were selected. Sixty percent (58/97) of the stepwise routines also did not specify the algorithm and/or significance levels. CONCLUSIONS: The variable selection methods reported in the two journals were limited in variety, and details were often missing. Many studies still relied on problematic techniques like stepwise procedures and/or multiple testing of bivariate associations at the 0.05 alpha-level. These deficiencies should be rectified to safeguard the scientific validity of articles published in Chinese epidemiology journals.
format Text
id pubmed-2956721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29567212010-10-19 A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals Liao, Huimin Lynn, Henry S BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence BACKGROUND: Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals. METHODS: Articles published in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology and the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine were reviewed. Five categories of methods were identified whereby variables were selected using: A - bivariate analyses; B - multivariable analysis; e.g. stepwise or individual significance testing of model coefficients; C - first bivariate analyses, followed by multivariable analysis; D - bivariate analyses or multivariable analysis; and E - other criteria like prior knowledge or personal judgment. RESULTS: Among the 287 articles that reported using variable selection methods, 6%, 26%, 30%, 21%, and 17% were in categories A through E, respectively. One hundred sixty-three studies selected variables using bivariate analyses, 80% (130/163) via multiple significance testing at the 5% alpha-level. Of the 219 multivariable analyses, 97 (44%) used stepwise procedures, 89 (41%) tested individual regression coefficients, but 33 (15%) did not mention how variables were selected. Sixty percent (58/97) of the stepwise routines also did not specify the algorithm and/or significance levels. CONCLUSIONS: The variable selection methods reported in the two journals were limited in variety, and details were often missing. Many studies still relied on problematic techniques like stepwise procedures and/or multiple testing of bivariate associations at the 0.05 alpha-level. These deficiencies should be rectified to safeguard the scientific validity of articles published in Chinese epidemiology journals. BioMed Central 2010-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC2956721/ /pubmed/20920252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-87 Text en Copyright ©2010 Liao and Lynn; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Liao, Huimin
Lynn, Henry S
A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_full A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_fullStr A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_full_unstemmed A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_short A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_sort survey of variable selection methods in two chinese epidemiology journals
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20920252
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-87
work_keys_str_mv AT liaohuimin asurveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT lynnhenrys asurveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT liaohuimin surveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT lynnhenrys surveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals