Reporting and Methodology of Multivariable Analyses in Prognostic Observational Studies Published in 4 Anesthesiology Journals: A Methodological Descriptive Review.
BACKGROUND
Prognostic research studies in anesthesiology aim to identify risk factors for an outcome (explanatory studies) or calculate the risk of this outcome on the basis of patients' risk factors (predictive studies). Multivariable models express the relationship between predictors and an outcome and are used in both explanatory and predictive studies. Model development demands a strict methodology and a clear reporting to assess its reliability. In this methodological descriptive review, we critically assessed the reporting and methodology of multivariable analysis used in observational prognostic studies published in anesthesiology journals.


METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on Medline through Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and journal websites to identify observational prognostic studies with multivariable analysis published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, and Anaesthesia in 2010 and 2011. Data were extracted by 2 independent readers. First, studies were analyzed with respect to reporting of outcomes, design, size, methods of analysis, model performance (discrimination and calibration), model validation, clinical usefulness, and STROBE (i.e., Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist. A reporting rate was calculated on the basis of 21 items of the aforementioned points. Second, they were analyzed with respect to some predefined methodological points.


RESULTS
Eighty-six studies were included: 87.2% were explanatory and 80.2% investigated a postoperative event. The reporting was fairly good, with a median reporting rate of 79% (75% in explanatory studies and 100% in predictive studies). Six items had a reporting rate <36% (i.e., the 25th percentile), with some of them not identified in the STROBE checklist: blinded evaluation of the outcome (11.9%), reason for sample size (15.1%), handling of missing data (36.0%), assessment of colinearity (17.4%), assessment of interactions (13.9%), and calibration (34.9%). When reported, a few methodological shortcomings were observed, both in explanatory and predictive studies, such as an insufficient number of events of the outcome (44.6%), exclusion of cases with missing data (93.6%), or categorization of continuous variables (65.1%.).


CONCLUSIONS
The reporting of multivariable analysis was fairly good and could be further improved by checking reporting guidelines and EQUATOR Network website. Limiting the number of candidate variables, including cases with missing data, and not arbitrarily categorizing continuous variables should be encouraged.
From the Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation Chirurgicale, APHP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France; INSERM, UMR 1137, IAME, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidemiologie Clinique, Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France; Service de Biostatistique, APHP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France; Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France; INSERM, UMR 1137, IAME, Paris, France; and Département d'Anesthésie-Réanimation Chirurgicale, APHP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France; Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Jean
J
Guglielminotti
Agnès
A
Dechartres
France
F
Mentré
Philippe
P
Montravers
Dan
D
Longrois
Cedric
C
Laouénan
D000776:Anesthesiology / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D064887:Observational Studies as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011379:Prognosis; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards*