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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |