It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Background
Observational studies provide important information about the effects of exposures that cannot be easily studied in clinical trials, such as nutritional exposures, but are subject to confounding. Investigators adjust for confounders by entering them as covariates in analytic models.
Objective
The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting and credibility of methods for selection of covariates in nutritional epidemiology studies.
Methods
We sampled 150 nutritional epidemiology studies published in 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 from the top 5 high-impact nutrition and medical journals and extracted information on methods for selection of covariates.
Results
Most studies did not report selecting covariates a priori (94.0%) or criteria for selection of covariates (63.3%). There was general inconsistency in choice of covariates, even among studies investigating similar questions. One-third of studies did not acknowledge potential for residual confounding in their discussion.
Conclusion
Studies often do not report methods for selection of covariates, follow available guidance for selection of covariates, nor discuss potential for residual confounding.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2 Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
3 Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
4 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
5 Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
6 Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada