Is the Way Forward to Step Back? Documenting the Frequency With Which Study Goals Are Misaligned With Study Methods and Interpretations in the Epidemiologic Literature.
IF 8.3 2区 材料科学Q1 MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
{"title":"Is the Way Forward to Step Back? Documenting the Frequency With Which Study Goals Are Misaligned With Study Methods and Interpretations in the Epidemiologic Literature.","authors":"Katrina L Kezios","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxab008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In any research study, there is an underlying process that should begin with a clear articulation of the study's goal. The study's goal drives this process; it determines many study features, including the estimand of interest, the analytic approaches that can be used to estimate it, and which coefficients, if any, should be interpreted. Misalignment can occur in this process when analytic approaches and/or interpretations do not match the study's goal; misalignment is potentially more likely to arise when study goals are ambiguously framed. In this study, misalignment in the observational epidemiologic literature was documented and how the framing of study goals contributes to misalignment was explored. The following 2 misalignments were examined: use of an inappropriate variable selection approach for the goal (a \"goal-methods\" misalignment) and interpretation of coefficients of variables for which causal considerations were not made (e.g., Table 2 Fallacy, a \"goal-interpretation\" misalignment). A random sample of 100 articles published 2014-2018 in the top 5 general epidemiology journals were reviewed. Most reviewed studies were causal, with either explicitly stated (n = 13; 13%) or associational-framed (n = 71; 69%) aims. Full alignment of goal-methods-interpretations was infrequent (n = 9; 9%), although clearly causal studies (n = 5 of 13; 38%) were more often fully aligned than were seemingly causal ones (n = 3 of 71; 4%). Goal-methods misalignments were common (n = 34 of 103; 33%), but most frequently, methods were insufficiently reported to draw conclusions (n = 47; 46%). Goal-interpretations misalignments occurred in 31% (n = 32) of the studies and occurred less often when the methods were aligned (n = 2; 2%) compared with when the methods were misaligned (n = 13; 13%).</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":" ","pages":"4-18"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9005115/pdf/mxab008.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxab008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In any research study, there is an underlying process that should begin with a clear articulation of the study's goal. The study's goal drives this process; it determines many study features, including the estimand of interest, the analytic approaches that can be used to estimate it, and which coefficients, if any, should be interpreted. Misalignment can occur in this process when analytic approaches and/or interpretations do not match the study's goal; misalignment is potentially more likely to arise when study goals are ambiguously framed. In this study, misalignment in the observational epidemiologic literature was documented and how the framing of study goals contributes to misalignment was explored. The following 2 misalignments were examined: use of an inappropriate variable selection approach for the goal (a "goal-methods" misalignment) and interpretation of coefficients of variables for which causal considerations were not made (e.g., Table 2 Fallacy, a "goal-interpretation" misalignment). A random sample of 100 articles published 2014-2018 in the top 5 general epidemiology journals were reviewed. Most reviewed studies were causal, with either explicitly stated (n = 13; 13%) or associational-framed (n = 71; 69%) aims. Full alignment of goal-methods-interpretations was infrequent (n = 9; 9%), although clearly causal studies (n = 5 of 13; 38%) were more often fully aligned than were seemingly causal ones (n = 3 of 71; 4%). Goal-methods misalignments were common (n = 34 of 103; 33%), but most frequently, methods were insufficiently reported to draw conclusions (n = 47; 46%). Goal-interpretations misalignments occurred in 31% (n = 32) of the studies and occurred less often when the methods were aligned (n = 2; 2%) compared with when the methods were misaligned (n = 13; 13%).
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.