Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,115

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Risk of Determining Risk with Multivariable Models

Concato, John, Feinstein, Alvan R., Holford, Theodore R.·1993·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review the principles of multivariable analysis and to examine the application of multivariable statistical methods in general medical literature. DATA SOURCES: A computer-assisted search of articles in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine identified 451 publications containing multivariable methods from 1985 through 1989. A random sample of 60 articles that used the two most common methods--logistic regression or proportional hazards analysis--was selected for more intensive review. DATA EXTRACTION: During review of the 60 randomly selected articles, the focus was on generally accepted methodologic guidelines that can prevent problems affecting the accuracy and interpretation of multivariable analytic results. RESULTS: From 1985 to 1989, the relative frequency of multivariable statistical methods increased annually from about 10% to 18% among all articles in the two journals. In 44 (73%) of 60 articles using logistic or proportional hazards regression, risk estimates were quantified for individual variables ("risk factors"). Violations and omissions of methodologic guidelines in these 44 articles included overfitting of data; no test of conformity of variables to a linear gradient; no mention of pertinent checks for proportional hazards; no report of testing for interactions between independent variables; and unspecified coding or selection of independent variables. These problems would make the reported results potentially inaccurate, misleading, or difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a need for improvement in the reporting and perhaps conducting of multivariable analyses in medical research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-118-3-199302010-00009

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,115

Metadata

Authors
Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R., & Holford, T. R.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1993-02-01
Volume
118
Issue
3
Pages
201-210
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2094104004
Cited by
1,115
References
7
FWCI
41.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.