Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals

Autores
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Borghi, Carolina; Nicotra, Pamela; Andreucci, Sara; Ciapponi, Agustín
Año de publicación
2016
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Objective To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. Design Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Not applicable. Intervention(s) Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. Result(s) Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. Conclusion(s) Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina. University of California st San Francisco; Estados Unidos
Fil: Borghi, Carolina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Nicotra, Pamela. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Andreucci, Sara. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Materia
Absolute Difference
Confidence Intervals
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
P Value
Reporting Quality
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53081
Acceder
id CONICETDig_ffd89aafadce56fce4f31502cdd05210
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53081
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journalsGlujovsky, DemianSueldo, CarlosBorghi, CarolinaNicotra, PamelaAndreucci, SaraCiapponi, AgustínAbsolute DifferenceConfidence IntervalsMinimal Clinically Important DifferenceP ValueReporting Qualityhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Objective To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. Design Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Not applicable. Intervention(s) Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. Result(s) Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. Conclusion(s) Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; ArgentinaFil: Sueldo, Carlos. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina. University of California st San Francisco; Estados UnidosFil: Borghi, Carolina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; ArgentinaFil: Nicotra, Pamela. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; ArgentinaFil: Andreucci, Sara. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaElsevier Science Inc2016-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/53081Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Borghi, Carolina; Nicotra, Pamela; Andreucci, Sara; et al.; Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals; Elsevier Science Inc; Fertility and Sterility; 105; 5; 5-2016; 1301-13060015-0282CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.134info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028215023146info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:43:55Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53081instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:43:55.818CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
title Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
spellingShingle Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
Glujovsky, Demian
Absolute Difference
Confidence Intervals
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
P Value
Reporting Quality
title_short Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
title_full Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
title_fullStr Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
title_full_unstemmed Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
title_sort Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos
Borghi, Carolina
Nicotra, Pamela
Andreucci, Sara
Ciapponi, Agustín
author Glujovsky, Demian
author_facet Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos
Borghi, Carolina
Nicotra, Pamela
Andreucci, Sara
Ciapponi, Agustín
author_role author
author2 Sueldo, Carlos
Borghi, Carolina
Nicotra, Pamela
Andreucci, Sara
Ciapponi, Agustín
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Absolute Difference
Confidence Intervals
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
P Value
Reporting Quality
topic Absolute Difference
Confidence Intervals
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
P Value
Reporting Quality
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Objective To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. Design Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Not applicable. Intervention(s) Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. Result(s) Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. Conclusion(s) Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina. University of California st San Francisco; Estados Unidos
Fil: Borghi, Carolina. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Nicotra, Pamela. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Andreucci, Sara. Centro de Reproducción y Genética Humana.; Argentina
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
description Objective To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. Design Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. Setting Not applicable. Patient(s) Not applicable. Intervention(s) Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. Result(s) Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. Conclusion(s) Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/53081
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Borghi, Carolina; Nicotra, Pamela; Andreucci, Sara; et al.; Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals; Elsevier Science Inc; Fertility and Sterility; 105; 5; 5-2016; 1301-1306
0015-0282
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/53081
identifier_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Borghi, Carolina; Nicotra, Pamela; Andreucci, Sara; et al.; Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals; Elsevier Science Inc; Fertility and Sterility; 105; 5; 5-2016; 1301-1306
0015-0282
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.134
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028215023146
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Science Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Science Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613382648365056
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares