Pervasive Misclassification and Misconception of Study Designs in Asian Dermatology Journals Listed in Science Citation Index-Expanded

BACKGROUND: Misclassification of study designs of journals can hinder the readers from assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the study and evaluating the applicability of the study in the real-world setting. However, it seems that it is common for authors to neglect to classify the study design. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the classification of study designs and examine the common errors. METHODS: This descriptive study analyzed four Asian dermatology journals listed in the science citation index expanded from January 2018 to December 2018. We investigated discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs. Design Algorithm for Medical Literature on Intervention (DAMI) was used to determine the actual study design. RESULTS: Of the 177 papers analyzed, only 72 articles (40.7%) revealed their study design and among them, 23 articles (32.0%) showed discrepancies between the author-reported and the actual study designs. Case-control studies were the most commonly misclassified study designs by authors. CONCLUSION: There were considerable differences between the author-reported study design and the actual study design in Asian dermatology journals. Proper classification of study designs by the authors is essential to strengthen evidencebased medicine.