Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks

Lisa M. Schwartz · Steven Woloshin · Evan L. Dvorin · H. Gilbert Welch

142 citations0/0 files storedBMJ

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accessibility of absolute risk in articles reporting ratio measures in leading medical journals. DESIGN: Structured review of abstracts presenting ratio measures. SETTING: Articles published between 1 June 2003 and 1 May 2004 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: 222 articles based on study designs in which absolute risks were directly calculable (61 randomised trials, 161 cohort studies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Accessibility of the absolute risks underlying the first ratio measure in the abstract. RESULTS: 68% of articles (150/222) failed to report the underlying absolute risks for the first ratio measure in the abstract (range 55-81% across the journals). Among these articles, about half did report the underlying absolute risks elsewhere in the article (text, table, or figure) but half did not report them anywhere. Absolute risks were more likely to be reported in the abstract for randomised trials compared with cohort studies (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 4.2) and for studies reporting crude compared with adjusted ratio measures (62% v 21%; relative risk 3.0, 2.1 to 4.3). CONCLUSION: Absolute risks are often not easily accessible in articles reporting ratio measures and sometimes are missing altogether-this lack of accessibility can easily exaggerate readers' perceptions of benefit or harm.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 142 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 1992Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness?1995Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews

Cited by

2009Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 4: Observational Studies 2015Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects 2008Vaccine knowledge and practices of primary care providers of exempt vs. vaccinated children 2008CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration 2007Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study 2009Characteristics of Medical Research News Reported on Front Pages of Newspapers 2013Impact of Selective Evidence Presentation on Judgments of Health Inequality Trends: An Experimental Study 2007Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.