Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

Objective: To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalized journal publications Design: Cross-sectional Setting: International medical literature Participants: Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between March 1, 2020 and October 30, 2020 Main outcome measures: Study characteristics and discrepancies in 1) Results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure (e.g., PCR test), metric (e.g., mean change from baseline), assessment time point (e.g., 1 week post treatment), data reported (e.g., effect estimate and measures of precision), reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis (e.g., chi-squared test), subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary and 2) Spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so that results are viewed more favorably). Results: Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; 8 (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses conducted in journal publications, and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications. At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23 / 67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%) studies, and the journal publications only in 2 (3%) of studies. Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study. Conclusions: The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Download Full-text

Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051821 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. e051821

Author(s):

Lisa Bero ◽

Rosa Lawrence ◽

Louis Leslie ◽

Kellia Chiu ◽

Sally McDonald ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Statistical Significance ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Journal Publication ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Subgroup Analyses ◽

Journal Publications ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Results Reporting

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Download Full-text

CircaCompare: a method to estimate and statistically support differences in mesor, amplitude and phase, between circadian rhythms

Bioinformatics ◽

10.1093/bioinformatics/btz730 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rex Parsons ◽

Richard Parsons ◽

Nicholas Garner ◽

Henrik Oster ◽

Oliver Rawashdeh

Keyword(s):

Wave Function ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

P Value ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Fundamental Interest ◽

Response Variable ◽

Highly Sensitive ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Phase Amplitude

Abstract Motivation A fundamental interest in chronobiology is to compare patterns between groups of rhythmic data. However, many existing methods are ill-equipped to derive statements concerning the statistical significance of differences between rhythms that may be visually apparent. This is attributed to both the form of data used (longitudinal versus cross-sectional) and the limitations of the statistical tests used to draw conclusions. Results To address this problem, we propose that a cosinusoidal curve with a particular parametrization be used to model and compare data of two sets of observations collected over a 24-h period. The novelty of our test is in the parametrization, which allows the explicit estimation of rhythmic parameters [mesor (the rhythm-adjusted mean level of a response variable around which a wave function oscillates), amplitude and phase], and simultaneously testing for statistical significance in all three parameters between two or more groups of datasets. A statistically significant difference between two groups, regarding each of these rhythmic parameters, is indicated by a P-value. The method is evaluated by applying the model to publicly available datasets, and is further exemplified by comparison to the currently recommended method, DODR. The results suggest that the method proposed may be highly sensitive to detect rhythmic differences between groups in phase, amplitude and mesor. Availability and implementation https://github.com/RWParsons/circacompare/

Download Full-text

Healthworker Preparedness for COVID-19 Management and Implementation Experiences: A Mixed Methods Study in Uganda’s Refugee-Hosting Districts

10.21203/rs.3.rs-674967/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Gloria Seruwagi ◽

Catherine Nakidde ◽

Felix Otieno ◽

Joshua Kayiwa ◽

Brian Luswata ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Work Environment ◽

Negative Impact ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Total Sample ◽

P Value ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

High Level

Abstract Background : The negative impact of COVID-19 on population health outcomes raises critical questions on health system preparedness and resilience, especially in resource-limited settings. This study examined healthworker preparedness for COVID-19 management and implementation experiences in Uganda’s refugee-hosting districts.Methods : A cross sectional, mixed-method descriptive study in 17 health facilities in 7 districts from 4 major regions. Total sample size was 485 including >370 health care workers (HCWs). HCW knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) was assessed by using a pre-validated questionnaire. The quantitative data was processed and analysed using SPSS 26, and statistical significance assumed at p<0.05 for all statistical tests. Bloom's cutoff of 80% was used to determine threshold for sufficient knowledge level and practices with scores classified as high (80.0%–100.0%), average (60.0%–79.0%) and low (≤59.0%). HCW implementation experiences and key stakeholder opinions were further explored qualitatively using interviews which were audio-recorded, coded and thematically analysed.Results: On average 71% of HCWs were knowledgeable on the various aspects of COVID-19, although there is a wide variation in knowledge. Awareness of symptoms ranked highest among 95% (p value < 0.0001) of HCWs while awareness of the criteria for intubation for COVID-19 patients ranked lowest with only 35% (p value < 0.0001). Variations were noted on falsehoods about COVID-19 causes, prevention and treatment across Central (p value < 0.0356) and West Nile (p value < 0.0161) regions. Protective practices include adequate ventilation, virtual meetings and HCW training. Deficient practices were around psychosocial and lifestyle support, remote working and contingency plans for HCWs safety. The work environment has immensely changed with increased demands on the amount of work, skills and variation in nature of work. HCWs also reported moderate control over their work environment, high level of support from supervisors (88%) and colleagues (93%). Conclusions: HCWs preparedness is inadequate in some aspects. Implementation of healthcare interventions is constrained by the complexity of Uganda’s health system design, top-down approach of the national response to COVID-19 and longstanding health system bottlenecks. We recommend continuous information sharing on COVID-19, a design review with capacity strengthening at all health facility levels and investing in community-facing strategies.

Download Full-text

Healthworker preparedness for COVID-19 management and implementation experiences: a mixed methods study in Uganda’s refugee-hosting districts

Conflict and Health ◽

10.1186/s13031-021-00415-z ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Gloria Seruwagi ◽

Catherine Nakidde ◽

Felix Otieno ◽

Joshua Kayiwa ◽

Brian Luswata ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Work Environment ◽

Negative Impact ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Total Sample ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Resource Limited ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

High Level

Abstract Background The negative impact of COVID-19 on population health outcomes raises critical questions on health system preparedness and resilience, especially in resource-limited settings. This study examined healthworker preparedness for COVID-19 management and implementation experiences in Uganda’s refugee-hosting districts. Methods A cross sectional, mixed-method descriptive study in 17 health facilities in 7 districts from 4 major regions. Total sample size was 485 including > 370 health care workers (HCWs). HCW knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) was assessed by using a pre-validated questionnaire. The quantitative data was processed and analysed using SPSS 26, and statistical significance assumed at p < 0.05 for all statistical tests. Bloom's cutoff of 80% was used to determine threshold for sufficient knowledge level and practices with scores classified as high (80.0–100.0%), average (60.0–79.0%) and low (≤ 59.0%). HCW implementation experiences and key stakeholder opinions were further explored qualitatively using interviews which were audio-recorded, coded and thematically analysed. Results On average 71% of HCWs were knowledgeable on the various aspects of COVID-19, although there is a wide variation in knowledge. Awareness of symptoms ranked highest among 95% (p value < 0.0001) of HCWs while awareness of the criteria for intubation for COVID-19 patients ranked lowest with only 35% (p value < 0.0001). Variations were noted on falsehoods about COVID-19 causes, prevention and treatment across Central (p value < 0.0356) and West Nile (p value < 0.0161) regions. Protective practices include adequate ventilation, virtual meetings and HCW training. Deficient practices were around psychosocial and lifestyle support, remote working and contingency plans for HCW safety. The work environment has immensely changed with increased demands on the amount of work, skills and variation in nature of work. HCWs reported moderate control over their work environment but with a high level of support from supervisors (88%) and colleagues (93%). Conclusions HCWs preparedness is inadequate in some aspects. Implementation of healthcare interventions is constrained by the complexity of Uganda’s health system design, top-down approach of the national response to COVID-19 and longstanding health system bottlenecks. We recommend continuous information sharing on COVID-19, a design review with capacity strengthening at all health facility levels and investing in community-facing strategies.

Download Full-text

Who Indicates Caesarean Section in Romania? A Cross-Sectional Survey in Tertiary Level Maternity on Childbirth Patients and Doctors' Profiles

10.21203/rs.3.rs-39240/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anca Angela Simionescu ◽

Alexandra Horobet ◽

Erika Marin ◽

Lucian Belascu

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Tertiary Level ◽

Delivery Mode ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Indication ◽

Delivery Modes ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background. C-section rate in Romania is the second-highest in the European Union (44.1% in 2017) and the number of C-sections performed in the country increased by 32.1% between 2009 and 2017. We offer for the first time insights into the practice and perceptions of patients and doctors in Romania towards delivery mode and on health system particularities that lead to increased numbers of C-sections. The objectives are 1) to compare the preferred modes of birth among women 2) to draw a profile of patients in whose case the actual birth method is different from the preferred method, and 3) to outline a profile of doctors and patients based on the modes of delivery. Methods. We conduct a statistical analysis based on an observational, analytical, and cross-sectional survey on 117 singleton pregnant women more than 36 weeks in spontaneous labor in tertiary level maternity in Romania. Various statistical tests have been used to indicate statistical significance. Results. Our results show an increase of almost 58% in actual childbirth mode against preferred childbirth by C-sections, rather difficult to justify based only on medical emergencies. There are 22 patients with non-concordant C-section indications between preferred and actual mode of birth, 7 of them (31.8%) preferred natural birth and 15 (68.2%) preferred C-section. Scarred uterus is the most frequent medical indication for C-section (30.7%). Overall, birth and birth pain assessment correlates to preferred and actual delivery modes, but respondents distinguish clearly between birth pain alone and their overall birth experience. The profiles of patients with concordant and non-concordant delivery modes are different, and indicate a statistically significant difference between the preference for delivery and actual birth method. Patients who preferred vaginal birth, but gave birth by C-section, are mature and more educated women, in the middle to the high-income category, mostly attended by consultant doctors and specialists. Doctors’ profiles show that specialists and consultants attend the largest share of non-concordant births, while residents and young senior doctors attend mostly vaginal births. Conclusions. We emphasize health system particularities in Romania as triggers of high C-section rates that favor womens’ preferences against C-section medical indication.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Covering Treatments for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/24730114211000637 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 247301142110006

Author(s):

Marvin Carr ◽

David Dye ◽

Wade Arthur ◽

Ryan Ottwell ◽

Byron Detweiler ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Achilles Tendon ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Tendon Repair ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Meta Analyses

Background: Approximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested. Hypothesis/purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin—reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm—in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair. We also evaluated whether particular study characteristics were associated with spin. Study design: Cross-sectional. Methods: We developed a search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews focused on Achilles tendon treatment. Following title and abstract screening of these search returns, these reviews were evaluated for spin (according to a previously developed classification scheme) and received AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews–2) appraisals by 2 investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. Results: Our systematic search returned 251 articles of which 43 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 65.1% of included studies contained spin (28/43). Spin type 3 was the most common type, occurring in 53.5% (23/43) of abstracts. Spin types 5, 6, 1, and 4 occurred in 16.3% (7/43), 9.3% (4/43), 7% (3/43), and 5.3% (1/43), respectively. Spin types 2, 7, 8, and 9 did not occur. AMSTAR-2 appraised 32.6% (14/43) of the studies as “moderate” quality, 32.6% (14/43) as “low” quality, and 34.9% (15/43) as “critically low” quality. No systematic reviews were rated as “high” quality. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the following study characteristics: intervention type, article discussing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) adherence, journal recommending PRISMA adherence, funding sources, journal 5-year impact factor, year the review was received for publication, or AMSTAR-2 critical appraisals. Conclusion: Spin was present in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses—covering Achilles tendon tear treatment. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on Achilles tendon treatment as well as other common orthopedic conditions. Clinical relevance: In order to avoid negative patient outcomes, articles should be free of spin within the abstract.

Download Full-text

Knowledge of Adverse Events Following Immunization Reporting Tool and System Among Primary Healthcare Workers in Jigawa State

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.895 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (S1) ◽

pp. s308-s308

Author(s):

Ahmad Umar ◽

Muawiyyah Sufiyan ◽

Dahiru Tukur ◽

Mary Onoja-Alexander ◽

Lawal Amadu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Primary Healthcare ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Sampling Technique ◽

The State ◽

Health Facilities ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Significance Level ◽

Immunization Services

Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance largely depends on the ability of the healthcare worker (HCW) to timely detect and report cases using the correct reporting tools through an appropriate system. AEFI surveillance is carried out regularly during both routine immunization services and supplemental immunization activities in the state. Objective: We assessed knowledge of adverse events following immunization reporting tools and system among primary HCWs in Jigawa state, northwestern Nigeria. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional design was used for this study. A multistage sampling technique was used to select 290 HCWs that had spent at least 6 months in immunization units of primary healthcare centers of Jigawa state. Data were collected using pretested self-administered structured questionnaire with open and closed ended questions and were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20 software. All statistical tests were 2-tailed with P < .05 as the statistical significance level. Results: Most of the primary HCWs (93.2%) had AEFI reporting forms in their health facilities, and 68.9% said that the AEFI reporting form could be obtained from a focal or contact person in the health facility. Up to 96.4% of the primary HCWs were aware of how to report AEFI. Also, ~76.6% of primary HCWs knew the correct AEFI reporting flow, but only 15.8% knew that only serious AEFIs are reported. Furthermore, ~78.8% and 19.4% of HCWs mentioned telephone and filling forms as some of the appropriate methods of AEFI notification, respectively. Conclusions: Most primary HCWs had reporting forms in their health facilities and were aware of how to report an AEFI. Most of the respondents knew the correct AEFI reporting flow. The state in collaboration with local government authorities should provide quality training on AEFI reporting and reporting system.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Download Full-text

Clinical and Epidemiological Profile of Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma at Two Quaternary Hospitals in Mozambique in 2016

Annals of African Surgery ◽

10.4314/aas.v18i2.5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 85-89

Author(s):

Nádia Armindo Henriques Fortes ◽

Prem Yohannan

Keyword(s):

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Maxillofacial Trauma ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Treatment Protocols ◽

Significance Levels ◽

The Face ◽

Epidemiological Profile ◽

Clinical Records

Background: Our objective was to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological profile of maxillofacial trauma in patients attended to at the Maputo Central and Nampula Central hospitals in 2016. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional retrospective study based on clinical records of all patients with maxillofacial trauma who attended consultations or were admitted to wards of the maxillofacial surgery services from January to December 2016. Statistical tests looking for significance levels of 5% were performed in SPSS. Results: Trauma accounted for 482 (35.65%) patients treated at the central hospitals of Maputo and Nampula: of these patients 373 (77.4%) fell in the 15–44-year age group, 363 (75.31%) were male, and 430 (89.21%) were ethnically African. Most patients (259 or 53.77%) treated at these hospitals were outpatients. The most frequent cause of trauma (albeit without statistical significance) wasphysical violence. The lower floor of the face was more frequently involved (279 or 57.88%), and the most common treatment was closed reduction (238 or 49.38%). Conclusion: The characteristic clinical and epidemiological profile of patients with maxillofacial trauma is mainly fractures of the lower floor of the face. These types of injuries are usually severe, and developing preventative and multidisciplinary conducts and treatment protocols for these patients is imperative. Keywords: Epidemiological profile, Maxillofacial trauma, Mozambique

Download Full-text

Statistical Significance Testing at CHI PLAY: Challenges and Opportunities for More Transparency

10.31219/osf.io/58wzp ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jan Benjamin Vornhagen ◽

April Tyack ◽

Elisa D Mekler

Keyword(s):

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Significance Testing ◽

Statistical Significance Testing ◽

Questionable Research Practices ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Challenges And Opportunities ◽

Statistical Hypotheses

Statistical Significance Testing -- or Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) -- is common to quantitative CHI PLAY research. Drawing from recent work in HCI and psychology promoting transparent statistics and the reduction of questionable research practices, we systematically review the reporting quality of 119 CHI PLAY papers using NHST (data and analysis plan at https://osf.io/4mcbn/. We find that over half of these papers employ NHST without specific statistical hypotheses or research questions, which may risk the proliferation of false positive findings. Moreover, we observe inconsistencies in the reporting of sample sizes and statistical tests. These issues reflect fundamental incompatibilities between NHST and the frequently exploratory work common to CHI PLAY. We discuss the complementary roles of exploratory and confirmatory research, and provide a template for more transparent research and reporting practices.

Download Full-text

Does sub-Saharan Africa truly defy the forecasts of the COVID-19 pandemic? Response from population data

10.1101/2020.07.06.20147124 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Dongmo Christophe Fokoua-Maxime ◽

Monique Amor-Ndjabo ◽

Amandus Ankobil ◽

Momah Victor-Kiyung ◽

Steve Franck-Metomb ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Statistical Tests ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

P Value ◽

London School ◽

African Countries ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Population Proportion ◽

Percentage Difference ◽

Sub Saharan

AbstractIntroductionSince its identification, the COVID-19 infection has caused substantial mortality and morbidity worldwide, but sub-Saharan Africa seems to defy the predictions. We aimed to verify this hypothesis using strong statistical methods.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study comparing the projected and actual numbers as well as population proportions of COVID-19 cases in the 46 sub-Saharan African countries on May 1st, May 29th (4 weeks later) and June 26th (8 weeks later). The source of the projected number of cases was a publication by scientists from the Center for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, whereas the actual number of cases was obtained from the WHO situation reports. We calculated the percentage difference between the projected and actual numbers of cases per country. Further, “N-1” chi-square tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the projected and actual population proportion of COVID-19 cases, along with the 95% confidence interval of the difference between these population proportions. All statistical tests were 2-sided, with 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.ResultsOn May 1st, May 29th and June 26th, respectively 40 (86.95%), 45 (97.82%) and 41 (89.13%) of the sub-Saharan African countries reported a number of confirmed cases that was lower than the predicted number of 1000 cases for May 1st and 10000 for both May 29th and June 26th. At these dates, the population proportions of confirmed Covid-19 cases were significantly lower (p-value <0.05) than the projected proportions of cases. Across all these dates, South-Africa always exceeded the predicted number and population proportion of COVID-19 infections.ConclusionSub-Saharan African countries did defy the dire predictions of the COVID-19 burden. Preventive measures should be further enforced to preserve this positive outcome.

Download Full-text