We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
REVIEW
The risk of determining risk with multivariable models.
Annals of Internal Medicine 1993 Februrary 2
PURPOSE: To review the principles of multivariable analysis and to examine the application of multivariable statistical methods in general medical literature.
DATA SOURCES: A computer-assisted search of articles in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine identified 451 publications containing multivariable methods from 1985 through 1989. A random sample of 60 articles that used the two most common methods--logistic regression or proportional hazards analysis--was selected for more intensive review.
DATA EXTRACTION: During review of the 60 randomly selected articles, the focus was on generally accepted methodologic guidelines that can prevent problems affecting the accuracy and interpretation of multivariable analytic results.
RESULTS: From 1985 to 1989, the relative frequency of multivariable statistical methods increased annually from about 10% to 18% among all articles in the two journals. In 44 (73%) of 60 articles using logistic or proportional hazards regression, risk estimates were quantified for individual variables ("risk factors"). Violations and omissions of methodologic guidelines in these 44 articles included overfitting of data; no test of conformity of variables to a linear gradient; no mention of pertinent checks for proportional hazards; no report of testing for interactions between independent variables; and unspecified coding or selection of independent variables. These problems would make the reported results potentially inaccurate, misleading, or difficult to interpret.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a need for improvement in the reporting and perhaps conducting of multivariable analyses in medical research.
DATA SOURCES: A computer-assisted search of articles in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine identified 451 publications containing multivariable methods from 1985 through 1989. A random sample of 60 articles that used the two most common methods--logistic regression or proportional hazards analysis--was selected for more intensive review.
DATA EXTRACTION: During review of the 60 randomly selected articles, the focus was on generally accepted methodologic guidelines that can prevent problems affecting the accuracy and interpretation of multivariable analytic results.
RESULTS: From 1985 to 1989, the relative frequency of multivariable statistical methods increased annually from about 10% to 18% among all articles in the two journals. In 44 (73%) of 60 articles using logistic or proportional hazards regression, risk estimates were quantified for individual variables ("risk factors"). Violations and omissions of methodologic guidelines in these 44 articles included overfitting of data; no test of conformity of variables to a linear gradient; no mention of pertinent checks for proportional hazards; no report of testing for interactions between independent variables; and unspecified coding or selection of independent variables. These problems would make the reported results potentially inaccurate, misleading, or difficult to interpret.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a need for improvement in the reporting and perhaps conducting of multivariable analyses in medical research.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app