Literature DB >> 9052583

Treatment of continuous data as categoric variables in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

G Del Priore1, P Zandieh, M J Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the treatment of continuous data in a sample of obstetric and gynecologic literature.
METHODS: We reviewed articles in Obstetrics and Gynecology published in the first 4 months of 1985 and 1995. Data were tabulated on a data form created specifically for this purpose and reviewed for accuracy.
RESULTS: The sample set included 170 variables in 102 original articles from Obstetrics and Gynecology published from January to April 1995, inclusive (group A, contemporary articles), and 117 variables in 89 articles published between January and April 1985, inclusive (group B, historic articles). Fifty-three variables (31% of total variables) in group A and 27 variables (23% of total variables) in group B (chi 2, P = .05) were continuous predictor variables. The historic-period articles (63%) were significantly more likely to represent continuous data only as categoric variables than were articles in the contemporary period (38%) (Fisher exact test, P = .037). Correlation coefficients, r values, were provided where possible in ten articles in the contemporary period (83%) and four articles in the historic period (31%) (Fisher exact test, P = .008). In articles in which continuous predictors were treated only as categoric variables, an emphasis was placed on the findings based only on categories in four of 12 (33%) of these articles in 1995 and nine of 13 (69%) in 1985 (Fisher exact test, P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of continuous data has improved over the time period reviewed. However, clinicians should be aware that continuous data may be mischaracterized as categoric variables in some journal articles. We hope that in the future, editors will consider requesting r values for all continuous data relations. The quality-of-care implications of using discrete cutoffs of continuous data for patient care should be investigated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9052583     DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00504-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  9 in total

1.  A graphical method for assessing risk factor threshold values using the generalized additive model: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis.

Authors:  Claude Messan Setodji; Maren Scheuner; James S Pankow; Roger S Blumenthal; Haiying Chen; Emmett Keeler
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2012-03

Review 2.  The cost of dichotomising continuous variables.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Patrick Royston
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

3.  Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade.

Authors:  Philip J Johnson; Sarah Berhane; Chiaki Kagebayashi; Shinji Satomura; Mabel Teng; Helen L Reeves; James O'Beirne; Richard Fox; Anna Skowronska; Daniel Palmer; Winnie Yeo; Frankie Mo; Paul Lai; Mercedes Iñarrairaegui; Stephen L Chan; Bruno Sangro; Rebecca Miksad; Toshifumi Tada; Takashi Kumada; Hidenori Toyoda
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research.

Authors:  A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jimenez-Fonseca; A Fernández-Somoano; F Álvarez-Manceñido; E Castañón; A Custodio; F A de la Peña; R M Payo; L P Valiente
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Predicting the risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women presenting with vaginal bleeding: the Norwich DEFAB risk assessment tool.

Authors:  N Burbos; P Musonda; I Giarenis; A M Shiner; P Giamougiannis; E P Morris; J J Nieto
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 6.  The utility of a single test to identify women at risk for gestational diabetes.

Authors:  D A Sacks
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.810

7.  Blood parameters score predicts long-term outcomes in stage II-III gastric cancer patients.

Authors:  Jian-Xian Lin; Yi-Hui Tang; Jia-Bin Wang; Jun Lu; Qi-Yue Chen; Long-Long Cao; Mi Lin; Ru-Hong Tu; Chang-Ming Huang; Ping Li; Chao-Hui Zheng; Jian-Wei Xie
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Quantifying the impact of gestational diabetes mellitus, maternal weight and race on birthweight via quantile regression.

Authors:  Caitlyn N Ellerbe; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Jeffrey E Korte; Jill Mauldin; Kelly J Hunt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Biomarker-based prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: validation and extension of the BALAD model.

Authors:  R Fox; S Berhane; M Teng; T Cox; T Tada; H Toyoda; T Kumada; C Kagebayashi; S Satomura; P J Johnson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.