David A Grimes1. 1. Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. dgrimes@fhi.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review published articles in four U.S. obstetrics and gynecology journals labeled "case-control" studies to estimate the frequency of mislabeling the type of study. METHODS: I searched PubMed from January 1970 through May 2009, using journal name and "case-control" in the title as search terms. The journals included the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Fertility and Sterility, Journal of Reproductive Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynecology. I reviewed the methods of each report to confirm the study design and calculated the proportion of articles labeled as "case-control" in the title that were not case-control studies. I calculated Fisher's exact 95% confidence intervals around these proportions. RESULTS: In the 124 reports identified, the proportion of mislabeled "case-control" studies was 30% overall. It varied from 13% to 36% in the four journals, a 2.8-fold difference in frequency (95% confidence interval 0.9-9.0). The frequency of this mislabeling appears to have increased over time. CONCLUSION: Retrospective cohort studies are often mislabeled as "case-control" studies. This misleads readers as to what was done. Researchers need better training in methods and terminology, and editors and reviewers should scrutinize more carefully manuscripts claiming to be "case-control" studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
OBJECTIVE: To review published articles in four U.S. obstetrics and gynecology journals labeled "case-control" studies to estimate the frequency of mislabeling the type of study. METHODS: I searched PubMed from January 1970 through May 2009, using journal name and "case-control" in the title as search terms. The journals included the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Fertility and Sterility, Journal of Reproductive Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynecology. I reviewed the methods of each report to confirm the study design and calculated the proportion of articles labeled as "case-control" in the title that were not case-control studies. I calculated Fisher's exact 95% confidence intervals around these proportions. RESULTS: In the 124 reports identified, the proportion of mislabeled "case-control" studies was 30% overall. It varied from 13% to 36% in the four journals, a 2.8-fold difference in frequency (95% confidence interval 0.9-9.0). The frequency of this mislabeling appears to have increased over time. CONCLUSION: Retrospective cohort studies are often mislabeled as "case-control" studies. This misleads readers as to what was done. Researchers need better training in methods and terminology, and editors and reviewers should scrutinize more carefully manuscripts claiming to be "case-control" studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Nancy E Mayo; Nikki Ow; Miho Asano; Sorayya Askari; Ruth Barclay; Sabrina Figueiredo; Melanie Hawkins; Stanley Hum; Mehmet Inceer; Navaldeep Kaur; Ayse Kuspinar; Kedar K V Mate; Ana Maria Moga; Maryam Mozafarinia Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Olaf M Dekkers; Jan P Vandenbroucke; Myriam Cevallos; Andrew G Renehan; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 11.069