首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Extrapolation of correlation between 2 variables in 4 general medical journals.
【24h】

Extrapolation of correlation between 2 variables in 4 general medical journals.

机译:外推4种普通医学期刊中2个变量之间的相关性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: An estimated correlation between 2 variables is valid only within the range of observed data. Extrapolation is risky and should be performed with caution. METHODS: To assess the prevalence of problems with data extrapolation in the medical literature, all articles published from January through June 2000 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were reviewed manually. Articles containing at least 1 scatterplot with raw data and a corresponding fitted regression line were included in the analysis. Articles were considered to involve extrapolation if they contained at least 1 fitted line beyond the observed data in any scatter plot. RESULTS: A total of 178 articles presenting at least 1 scatterplot were identified. Among them, 37 articles (21%) (5 from BMJ, 7 from JAMA, 23 from The Lancet, and 2 from NEJM) were included. Twenty-two articles (59% [95% confidence interval, 42%-75%]) from all 4 journals involved extrapolation. None changed the line type to indicate extrapolation. Four articles (11%) contained a plot in which the fitted line reached unreasonable or meaningless values. Three articles (8%) stated explicit conclusions about values outside the range of the observed data. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of the articles analyzed from all 4 weekly general medical journals involved extrapolation without indication. Researchers, reviewers, and editors should be aware of this problem and work to eliminate it.
机译:背景:两个变量之间的估计相关性仅在观察到的数据范围内有效。外推是有风险的,应谨慎进行。方法:为了评估医学文献中数据外推问题的普遍性,对2000年1月至2000年6月在BMJ,JAMA,《柳叶刀》和《新英格兰医学杂志》(NEJM)上发表的所有文章进行了人工审查。分析中包括至少包含一个散点图和原始数据的文章,以及相应的拟合回归线。如果文章包含任何散点图中观察到的数据之外的至少1条拟合线,则认为这些文章包含外推法。结果:共鉴定出178篇论文,其中至少有1个散点图。其中包括37篇文章(占21%)(来自BMJ的5篇,JAMA的7篇,《柳叶刀》的23篇和NEJM的2篇)。所有4种期刊的22篇文章(59%[95%置信区间,42%-75%])都涉及外推法。没有一个更改线型以指示外推。四篇文章(占11%)包含一个图,其中拟合线达到了不合理或无意义的值。三篇文章(占8%)对超出观察数据范围的值给出了明确的结论。结论:在所有4种每周普通医学期刊中分析的文章中,很大一部分涉及外推而无指征。研究人员,审稿人和编辑应注意此问题并努力消除它。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号