Cargando…

Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals

Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) has been increasingly used in Chinese clinical medical research during the past few years. However, few evaluations of the quality of the reporting strategies in these studies are available. To evaluate the reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR used in p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Ying-ying, Zhou, Xiao-bin, Wang, Qiu-zhen, Zhu, Xiao-yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28538397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006972
_version_ 1783241630811160576
author Zhang, Ying-ying
Zhou, Xiao-bin
Wang, Qiu-zhen
Zhu, Xiao-yan
author_facet Zhang, Ying-ying
Zhou, Xiao-bin
Wang, Qiu-zhen
Zhu, Xiao-yan
author_sort Zhang, Ying-ying
collection PubMed
description Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) has been increasingly used in Chinese clinical medical research during the past few years. However, few evaluations of the quality of the reporting strategies in these studies are available. To evaluate the reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR used in published work, and related advice for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors. A total of 316 articles published in 5 leading Chinese clinical medical journals with high impact factor from January 2010 to July 2015 were selected for evaluation. Articles were evaluated according 12 established criteria for proper use and reporting of MLR models. Among the articles, the highest quality score was 9, the lowest 1, and the median 5 (4–5). A total of 85.1% of the articles scored below 6. No significant differences were found among these journals with respect to quality score (χ(2) = 6.706, P = .15). More than 50% of the articles met the following 5 criteria: complete identification of the statistical software application that was used (97.2%), calculation of the odds ratio and its confidence interval (86.4%), description of sufficient events (>10) per variable, selection of variables, and fitting procedure (78.2%, 69.3%, and 58.5%, respectively). Less than 35% of the articles reported the coding of variables (18.7%). The remaining 5 criteria were not satisfied by a sufficient number of articles: goodness-of-fit (10.1%), interactions (3.8%), checking for outliers (3.2%), collinearity (1.9%), and participation of statisticians and epidemiologists (0.3%). The criterion of conformity with linear gradients was applicable to 186 articles; however, only 7 (3.8%) mentioned or tested it. The reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR in selected articles were not satisfactory. In fact, severe deficiencies were noted. Only 1 article scored 9. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to consider MLR models more carefully and cooperate more closely with statisticians and epidemiologists. Journals should develop statistical reporting guidelines concerning MLR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5457877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54578772017-06-09 Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals Zhang, Ying-ying Zhou, Xiao-bin Wang, Qiu-zhen Zhu, Xiao-yan Medicine (Baltimore) 3700 Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) has been increasingly used in Chinese clinical medical research during the past few years. However, few evaluations of the quality of the reporting strategies in these studies are available. To evaluate the reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR used in published work, and related advice for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors. A total of 316 articles published in 5 leading Chinese clinical medical journals with high impact factor from January 2010 to July 2015 were selected for evaluation. Articles were evaluated according 12 established criteria for proper use and reporting of MLR models. Among the articles, the highest quality score was 9, the lowest 1, and the median 5 (4–5). A total of 85.1% of the articles scored below 6. No significant differences were found among these journals with respect to quality score (χ(2) = 6.706, P = .15). More than 50% of the articles met the following 5 criteria: complete identification of the statistical software application that was used (97.2%), calculation of the odds ratio and its confidence interval (86.4%), description of sufficient events (>10) per variable, selection of variables, and fitting procedure (78.2%, 69.3%, and 58.5%, respectively). Less than 35% of the articles reported the coding of variables (18.7%). The remaining 5 criteria were not satisfied by a sufficient number of articles: goodness-of-fit (10.1%), interactions (3.8%), checking for outliers (3.2%), collinearity (1.9%), and participation of statisticians and epidemiologists (0.3%). The criterion of conformity with linear gradients was applicable to 186 articles; however, only 7 (3.8%) mentioned or tested it. The reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR in selected articles were not satisfactory. In fact, severe deficiencies were noted. Only 1 article scored 9. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to consider MLR models more carefully and cooperate more closely with statisticians and epidemiologists. Journals should develop statistical reporting guidelines concerning MLR. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5457877/ /pubmed/28538397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006972 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
spellingShingle 3700
Zhang, Ying-ying
Zhou, Xiao-bin
Wang, Qiu-zhen
Zhu, Xiao-yan
Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title_full Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title_fullStr Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title_full_unstemmed Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title_short Quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in Chinese clinical medical journals
title_sort quality of reporting of multivariable logistic regression models in chinese clinical medical journals
topic 3700
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5457877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28538397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006972
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyingying qualityofreportingofmultivariablelogisticregressionmodelsinchineseclinicalmedicaljournals
AT zhouxiaobin qualityofreportingofmultivariablelogisticregressionmodelsinchineseclinicalmedicaljournals
AT wangqiuzhen qualityofreportingofmultivariablelogisticregressionmodelsinchineseclinicalmedicaljournals
AT zhuxiaoyan qualityofreportingofmultivariablelogisticregressionmodelsinchineseclinicalmedicaljournals