11. Quantitative variables

What to write

Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen, and why.

Explanation

Investigators make choices regarding how to collect and analyse quantitative data about exposures, effect modifiers and confounders. For example, they may group a continuous exposure variable to create a new categorical variable (see 6b. Matching criteria). Grouping choices may have important consequences for later analyses1,2. We advise that authors explain why and how they grouped quantitative data, including the number of categories, the cut-points, and category mean or median values. Whenever data are reported in tabular form, the counts of cases, controls, persons at risk, person-time at risk, etc. should be given for each category. Tables should not consist solely of effect-measure estimates or results of model fitting.

Investigators might model an exposure as continuous in order to retain all the information. In making this choice, one needs to consider the nature of the relationship of the exposure to the outcome. As it may be wrong to assume a linear relation automatically, possible departures from linearity should be investigated. Authors could mention alternative models they explored during analyses (e.g., using log transformation, quadratic terms or spline functions). Several methods exist for fitting a non-linear relation between the exposure and outcome2–4. Also, it may be informative to present both continuous and grouped analyses for a quantitative exposure of prime interest.

In a recent survey, two thirds of epidemiological publications studied quantitative exposure variables5. In 42 of 50 articles (84%) exposures were grouped into several ordered categories, but often without any stated rationale for the choices made. Fifteen articles used linear associations to model continuous exposure but only two reported checking for linearity. In another survey, of the psychological literature, dichotomization was justified in only 22 of 110 articles (20%)6.

Examples

“Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale less than 8 are considered to be seriously injured. A GCS of 9 or more indicates less serious brain injury. We examined the association of GCS in these two categories with the occurrence of death within 12 months from injury”7.

Training

The UK EQUATOR Centre runs training on how to write using reporting guidelines.

Discuss this item

Visit this items’ discussion page to ask questions and give feedback.

References

1.
Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1994;86(11):829-835. doi:10.1093/jnci/86.11.829
2.
Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine. 2005;25(1):127-141. doi:10.1002/sim.2331
3.
Greenland S. Avoiding power loss associated with categorization and ordinal scores in dose-response and trend analysis. Epidemiology. 1995;6(4):450-454. doi:10.1097/00001648-199507000-00025
4.
Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1999;28(5):964-974. doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964
5.
Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: A survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004;329(7471):883. doi:10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55
6.
MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods. 2002;7(1):19-40. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19
7.
Linn S, Levi L, Grunau PD, Zaidise I, Zarka S. Effect measure modification and confounding of severe head injury mortality by age and multiple organ injury severity. Annals of Epidemiology. 2007;17(2):142-147. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.08.004

Citation

For attribution, please cite this work as:
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The STROBE reporting guideline for writing up observational studies in epidemiology. The EQUATOR Network guideline dissemination platform. doi:10.1234/equator/1010101

Reporting Guidelines are recommendations to help describe your work clearly

Your research will be used by people from different disciplines and backgrounds for decades to come. Reporting guidelines list the information you should describe so that everyone can understand, replicate, and synthesise your work.

Reporting guidelines do not prescribe how research should be designed or conducted. Rather, they help authors transparently describe what they did, why they did it, and what they found.

Reporting guidelines make writing research easier, and transparent research leads to better patient outcomes.

Easier writing

Following guidance makes writing easier and quicker.

Learn more »

Smoother publishing

Many journals require completed reporting checklists at submission.

Learn more »

Maximum impact

From nobel prizes to null results, articles have more impact when everyone can use them.

Learn more »

Who reads research?

You work will be read by different people, for different reasons, around the world, and for decades to come. Reporting guidelines help you consider all of your potential audiences. For example, your research may be read by researchers from different fields, by clinicians, patients, evidence synthesisers, peer reviewers, or editors. Your readers will need information to understand, to replicate, apply, appraise, synthesise, and use your work.

Cohort studies

A cohort study is an observational study in which a group of people with a particular exposure (e.g. a putative risk factor or protective factor) and a group of people without this exposure are followed over time. The outcomes of the people in the exposed group are compared to the outcomes of the people in the unexposed group to see if the exposure is associated with particular outcomes (e.g. getting cancer or length of life).

Source.

Case-control studies

A case-control study is a research method used in healthcare to investigate potential risk factors for a specific disease. It involves comparing individuals who have been diagnosed with the disease (cases) to those who have not (controls). By analysing the differences between the two groups, researchers can identify factors that may contribute to the development of the disease.

An example would be when researchers conducted a case-control study examining whether exposure to diesel exhaust particles increases the risk of respiratory disease in underground miners. Cases included miners diagnosed with respiratory disease, while controls were miners without respiratory disease. Participants' past occupational exposures to diesel exhaust particles were evaluated to compare exposure rates between cases and controls.

Source.

Cross-sectional studies

A cross-sectional study (also sometimes called a "cross-sectional survey") serves as an observational tool, where researchers capture data from a cohort of participants at a singular point. This approach provides a 'snapshot'— a brief glimpse into the characteristics or outcomes prevalent within a designated population at that precise point in time. The primary aim here is not to track changes or developments over an extended period but to assess and quantify the current situation regarding specific variables or conditions. Such a methodology is instrumental in identifying patterns or correlations among various factors within the population, providing a basis for further, more detailed investigation.

Source

Systematic reviews

A systematic review is a comprehensive approach designed to identify, evaluate, and synthesise all available evidence relevant to a specific research question. In essence, it collects all possible studies related to a given topic and design, and reviews and analyses their results.

The process involves a highly sensitive search strategy to ensure that as much pertinent information as possible is gathered. Once collected, this evidence is often critically appraised to assess its quality and relevance, ensuring that conclusions drawn are based on robust data. Systematic reviews often involve defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, which help to focus the analysis on the most relevant studies, ultimately synthesising the findings into a coherent narrative or statistical synthesis. Some systematic reviews will include a meta-analysis.

Source

Systematic review protocols

TODO

Meta analyses of Observational Studies

TODO

Randomised Trials

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) is a trial in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more groups: the experimental group or groups receive the intervention or interventions being tested; the comparison group (control group) receive usual care or no treatment or a placebo. The groups are then followed up to see if there are any differences between the results. This helps in assessing the effectiveness of the intervention.

Source

Randomised Trial Protocols

TODO

Qualitative research

Research that aims to gather and analyse non-numerical (descriptive) data in order to gain an understanding of individuals' social reality, including understanding their attitudes, beliefs, and motivation. This type of research typically involves in-depth interviews, focus groups, or field observations in order to collect data that is rich in detail and context. Qualitative research is often used to explore complex phenomena or to gain insight into people's experiences and perspectives on a particular topic. It is particularly useful when researchers want to understand the meaning that people attach to their experiences or when they want to uncover the underlying reasons for people's behavior. Qualitative methods include ethnography, grounded theory, discourse analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Source

Case Reports

TODO

Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

Diagnostic accuracy studies focus on estimating the ability of the test(s) to correctly identify subjects with a predefined target condition, or the condition of interest (sensitivity) as well as to clearly identify those without the condition (specificity).

Prediction Models

Prediction model research is used to test the accurarcy of a model or test in estimating an outcome value or risk. Most models estimate the probability of the presence of a particular health condition (diagnostic) or whether a particular outcome will occur in the future (prognostic). Prediction models are used to support clinical decision making, such as whether to refer patients for further testing, monitor disease deterioration or treatment effects, or initiate treatment or lifestyle changes. Examples of well known prediction models include EuroSCORE II for cardiac surgery, the Gail model for breast cancer, the Framingham risk score for cardiovascular disease, IMPACT for traumatic brain injury, and FRAX for osteoporotic and hip fractures.

Source

Animal Research

TODO

Quality Improvement in Healthcare

Quality improvement research is about finding out how to improve and make changes in the most effective way. It is about systematically and rigourously exploring "what works" to improve quality in healthcare and the best ways to measure and disseminate this to ensure positive change. Most quality improvement effectiveness research is conducted in hospital settings, is focused on multiple quality improvement interventions, and uses process measures as outcomes. There is a great deal of variation in the research designs used to examine quality improvement effectiveness.

Source

Economic Evaluations in Healthcare

TODO

Meta Analyses

A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that amalgamates data from multiple studies to yield a single estimate of the effect size. This approach enhances precision and offers a more comprehensive understanding by integrating quantitative findings. Central to a meta-analysis is the evaluation of heterogeneity, which examines variations in study outcomes to ensure that differences in populations, interventions, or methodologies do not skew results. Techniques such as meta-regression or subgroup analysis are frequently employed to explore how various factors might influence the outcomes. This method is particularly effective when aiming to quantify the effect size, odds ratio, or risk ratio, providing a clearer numerical estimate that can significantly inform clinical or policy decisions.

How Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews Work Together

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses function together, each complementing the other to provide a more robust understanding of research evidence. A systematic review meticulously gathers and evaluates all pertinent studies, establishing a solid foundation of qualitative and quantitative data. Within this framework, if the collected data exhibit sufficient homogeneity, a meta-analysis can be performed. This statistical synthesis allows for the integration of quantitative results from individual studies, producing a unified estimate of effect size. Techniques such as meta-regression or subgroup analysis may further refine these findings, elucidating how different variables impact the overall outcome. By combining these methodologies, researchers can achieve both a comprehensive narrative synthesis and a precise quantitative measure, enhancing the reliability and applicability of their conclusions. This integrated approach ensures that the findings are not only well-rounded but also statistically robust, providing greater confidence in the evidence base.

Why Don't All Systematic Reviews Use a Meta-Analysis?

Systematic reviews do not always have meta-analyses, due to variations in the data. For a meta-analysis to be viable, the data from different studies must be sufficiently similar, or homogeneous, in terms of design, population, and interventions. When the data shows significant heterogeneity, meaning there are considerable differences among the studies, combining them could lead to skewed or misleading conclusions. Furthermore, the quality of the included studies is critical; if the studies are of low methodological quality, merging their results could obscure true effects rather than explain them.

Protocol

A plan or set of steps that defines how something will be done. Before carrying out a research study, for example, the research protocol sets out what question is to be answered and how information will be collected and analysed.

Source

Cohort_studies

In cohort studies, the investigators follow people over time. They obtain information about people and their exposures at baseline, let time pass, and then assess the occurrence of outcomes. Investigators commonly make contrasts between individuals who are exposed and not exposed or among groups of individuals with different categories of exposure. Investigators may assess several different outcomes, and examine exposure and outcome variables at multiple points during follow-up. Closed cohorts (for example birth cohorts) enrol a defined number of participants at study onset and follow them from that time forward, often at set intervals up to a fixed end date. In open cohorts the study population is dynamic - people enter and leave the population at different points in time (for example inhabitants of a town). Open cohorts change due to deaths, births, and migration, but the composition of the population with regard to variables such as age and gender may remain approximately constant, especially over a short period of time. In a closed cohort cumulative incidences (risks) and incidence rates can be estimated; when exposed and unexposed groups are compared, this leads to risk ratio or rate ratio estimates. Open cohorts estimate incidence rates and rate ratios.

Case_control_studies

In case-control studies, investigators compare exposures between people with a particular disease outcome (cases) and people without that outcome (controls). Investigators aim to collect cases and controls that are representative of an underlying cohort or a cross-section of a population. That population can be defined geographically, but also more loosely as the catchment area of health care facilities. The case sample may be 100% or a large fraction of available cases, while the control sample usually is only a small fraction of the people who do not have the pertinent outcome. Controls represent the cohort or population of people from which the cases arose. Investigators calculate the ratio of the odds of exposures to putative causes of the disease among cases and controls (see Item 16c). Depending on the sampling strategy for cases and controls and the nature of the population studied, the odds ratio obtained in a case-control study is interpreted as the risk ratio, rate ratio or (prevalence) odds ratio [@pmed-0040297-b016; @pmed-0040297-b017]. The majority of published case-control studies sample open cohorts and so allow direct estimations of rate ratios.

Cross-sectional_studies

In cross-sectional studies, investigators assess all individuals in a sample at the same point in time, often to examine the prevalence of exposures, risk factors or disease. Some cross-sectional studies are analytical and aim to quantify potential causal associations between exposures and disease. Such studies may be analysed like a cohort study by comparing disease prevalence between exposure groups. They may also be analysed like a case-control study by comparing the odds of exposure between groups with and without disease. A difficulty that can occur in any design but is particularly clear in cross-sectional studies is to establish that an exposure preceded the disease, although the time order of exposure and outcome may sometimes be clear. In a study in which the exposure variable is congenital or genetic, for example, we can be confident that the exposure preceded the disease, even if we are measuring both at the same time.