Cargando…

Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research

Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an “exposure”) and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sargeant, Jan M., O'Connor, Annette M., Totton, Sarah C., Vriezen, Ellen R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9638136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36353256
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1004801
_version_ 1784825342918131712
author Sargeant, Jan M.
O'Connor, Annette M.
Totton, Sarah C.
Vriezen, Ellen R.
author_facet Sargeant, Jan M.
O'Connor, Annette M.
Totton, Sarah C.
Vriezen, Ellen R.
author_sort Sargeant, Jan M.
collection PubMed
description Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an “exposure”) and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that the aim is identify causal relationships. Causal inference from observational studies may be appropriate when an exposure-outcome of interest is identified, causal reasoning is used to identify confounders, confounders are adequately controlled, and theoretical issues, such as temporality, are considered. If these conditions are not met, causal inference cannot be made in an observational study. The objective of our study was to explore the use of causal language in veterinary observational studies, and to compare the use of causal language between studies that appear to be predictive or associational in purpose vs. those that appear to be exploring causal relationships. The dataset comprised 200 observational studies in veterinary species published between 2020 and 2022. The majority (117 out of 200) were cross-sectional studies. There were 48 studies that described an exposure-outcome of interest, and we considered these studies to be exploring potential causal relationships; of note, this liberal categorization would be anticipated to overestimate the proportion of studies suitably designed for causal inference. Overall, 172 studies (86%) used causal wording in at least one section of the article. Causal language was used in 128/152 (84%) of studies exploring predictions or associations; this language implies causation when it is not appropriate to do so. In studies designed such that causal inference might be possible, 44/48 (92%) used causal language in one or more sections. There were no substantive differences in the use of causal wording between observational study designs, exposure types, or whether the first author's affiliation was a country in which English is an official language. There is a need for authors of veterinary observational studies to explicitly state the purpose of the study (associational, predictive, or causal), and to use causal wording appropriately based on the aim of the study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9638136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96381362022-11-08 Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research Sargeant, Jan M. O'Connor, Annette M. Totton, Sarah C. Vriezen, Ellen R. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an “exposure”) and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that the aim is identify causal relationships. Causal inference from observational studies may be appropriate when an exposure-outcome of interest is identified, causal reasoning is used to identify confounders, confounders are adequately controlled, and theoretical issues, such as temporality, are considered. If these conditions are not met, causal inference cannot be made in an observational study. The objective of our study was to explore the use of causal language in veterinary observational studies, and to compare the use of causal language between studies that appear to be predictive or associational in purpose vs. those that appear to be exploring causal relationships. The dataset comprised 200 observational studies in veterinary species published between 2020 and 2022. The majority (117 out of 200) were cross-sectional studies. There were 48 studies that described an exposure-outcome of interest, and we considered these studies to be exploring potential causal relationships; of note, this liberal categorization would be anticipated to overestimate the proportion of studies suitably designed for causal inference. Overall, 172 studies (86%) used causal wording in at least one section of the article. Causal language was used in 128/152 (84%) of studies exploring predictions or associations; this language implies causation when it is not appropriate to do so. In studies designed such that causal inference might be possible, 44/48 (92%) used causal language in one or more sections. There were no substantive differences in the use of causal wording between observational study designs, exposure types, or whether the first author's affiliation was a country in which English is an official language. There is a need for authors of veterinary observational studies to explicitly state the purpose of the study (associational, predictive, or causal), and to use causal wording appropriately based on the aim of the study. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9638136/ /pubmed/36353256 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1004801 Text en Copyright © 2022 Sargeant, O'Connor, Totton and Vriezen. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Veterinary Science
Sargeant, Jan M.
O'Connor, Annette M.
Totton, Sarah C.
Vriezen, Ellen R.
Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title_full Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title_fullStr Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title_full_unstemmed Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title_short Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
title_sort watch your language: an exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research
topic Veterinary Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9638136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36353256
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1004801
work_keys_str_mv AT sargeantjanm watchyourlanguageanexplorationoftheuseofcausalwordinginveterinaryobservationalresearch
AT oconnorannettem watchyourlanguageanexplorationoftheuseofcausalwordinginveterinaryobservationalresearch
AT tottonsarahc watchyourlanguageanexplorationoftheuseofcausalwordinginveterinaryobservationalresearch
AT vriezenellenr watchyourlanguageanexplorationoftheuseofcausalwordinginveterinaryobservationalresearch