OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency that patients are incorrectly used as the unit of analysis among studies of physicians' patient care behavior in articles published in high impact journals. METHODS: We surveyed 30 high-impact journals across 6 medical fields for articles susceptible to unit of analysis errors published from 1994 to 2005. Three reviewers independently abstracted articles using previously published criteria to determine the presence of analytic errors. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen susceptible articles were found published in 15 journals, 4 journals published the majority (71 of 114 or 62.3%) of studies, 40 were intervention studies, and 74 were noninterventional studies. The unit of analysis error was present in 19 (48%) of the intervention studies and 31 (42%) of the noninterventional studies (overall error rate 44%). The frequency of the error decreased between 1994-1999 (N = 38; 65% error) and 2000-2005 (N = 76; 33% error) (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of the error in published studies is decreasing, further improvement remains desirable.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency that patients are incorrectly used as the unit of analysis among studies of physicians' patient care behavior in articles published in high impact journals. METHODS: We surveyed 30 high-impact journals across 6 medical fields for articles susceptible to unit of analysis errors published from 1994 to 2005. Three reviewers independently abstracted articles using previously published criteria to determine the presence of analytic errors. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen susceptible articles were found published in 15 journals, 4 journals published the majority (71 of 114 or 62.3%) of studies, 40 were intervention studies, and 74 were noninterventional studies. The unit of analysis error was present in 19 (48%) of the intervention studies and 31 (42%) of the noninterventional studies (overall error rate 44%). The frequency of the error decreased between 1994-1999 (N = 38; 65% error) and 2000-2005 (N = 76; 33% error) (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of the error in published studies is decreasing, further improvement remains desirable.
Authors: Stijn Van de Velde; Annemie Heselmans; Nicolas Delvaux; Linn Brandt; Luis Marco-Ruiz; David Spitaels; Hanne Cloetens; Tiina Kortteisto; Pavel Roshanov; Ilkka Kunnamo; Bert Aertgeerts; Per Olav Vandvik; Signe Flottorp Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Andrew Hutchings; Mary Alison Durand; Richard Grieve; David Harrison; Kathy Rowan; Judith Green; John Cairns; Nick Black Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-11-11