Pitfalls in scientific research: critical appraisal of articles published in one of the international journals in Egypt

Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute - Tập 32 Số 1 - 2020
Sarah S. Nasr1, Ghada M. Sherif1, Amal S. Ibrahim1, Rasha Mahmoud Allam1
1National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background To identify and report flaws of Internet-published articles in the Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute (JENCI), Cairo University, through a retrospective documentary study on articles published during the period from 2011 to 2016. All sections were reviewed against a collective checklist. Articles were grouped by publication year into 2 intervals: early (from 2011 to 2013) and recent (from 2014 to 2016) to identify changes in study characteristics over time. Results The study included 139 original articles. Half of the titles represented aim and 9.4% represented study design. Abstracts were concise, clear, with structured writing format in 98.6%, 93.5%, and 35.3%, respectively. Most introductions included the study aim, while 41% had a rationale. Study timing was reported in 59.0%, while the study design was reported in 25.9%. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly reported in 43.1% and 40.1%, respectively. Statistical methods were mentioned in 80.6%, complete in 30.4%, and appropriate in 85.7%. Four studies reported sample size estimation. Only 52.5% and 58.3% of results were exhaustive and answer the research question, respectively. Incorrect statistical calculations occurred in 41.0%, inappropriate statistical tests or descriptive parameter selection in 26.6%, while inappropriate test application occurred in 49.1%. About 60% of discussions did not completely cover results, 31.7% fully justified the findings, 56.1% followed a logical flow, and 36.7% had contradiction within the text. Conclusions were mostly linked to aim, imprecise, and extrapolating beyond results. On comparing both periods, only a significant less misuse of statistical terms, more reporting conflict of interest, more missing references for cited texts in the recent period, and more participation of NCI over other institutes in the early period were found. Conclusion Articles published in JENCI (from 2011 to 2016) had many methodological and reporting defects and some points of strength. Using the collective checklist developed by this study, continuous training of researchers, involving epidemiologists throughout the whole research process, and applying strict journal reporting and publication rules should be encouraged.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

MacInnes A, Lamont T. Critical appraisal of a research paper. Scottish Universities Medical Journal. 2014 Jun 1;3(1).

Day RA, Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Santa Barbara. Cal. USA: Greenwood. 2011.

Porta M, editor. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford university press; 2014..

Allam RM, Noaman MK, Moneer MM, Elattar IA. Assessment of statistical methodologies and pitfalls of dissertations carried out at National Cancer Institute, Cairo University. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(1):231.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. STROBE initiative. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500–24.

Timmer A, Sutherland LR, Hilsden RJ. Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Dec 1;3(1):2.

Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Jun 1;52(6):377–84.

Common errors in scientific manuscripts [Web resource]. Available at: http://www.sfedit.net/newsletters.htm; 2017.

West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2002;47:1–1.

Morton SC, Costlow MR, Graff JS, Dubois RW. Standards and guidelines for observational studies: quality is in the eye of the beholder. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;71:3–10.

Dreyer NA, Velentgas P, Westrich K, Dubois R. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014 Mar;20(3):301–8.

Equator network [Web resource]. Available at: http://www.https://www.equator-network.org/; 2017.

BMJ, Best practice; [Web resource]. available online at: https://bestpractice.bmj. com/info/toolkit/ebm-toolbox/critical-appraisal-checklists/; 2017.

Ercan I, Ocakoğlu G, Siğirli D, Özkaya G. Assessment of submitted manuscripts in medical sciences according to statistical errors. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;32(5):1381–7.

Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738.

Hanif A, Ajmal T. Statistical errors in medical journals (a critical appraisal). Ann King Edward Med Univ. 2011;17(2):178.

Šimundić AM, Nikolac N. Statistical errors in manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica journal. Biochemia Medica. 2009;19(3):294–300.

Karan J, Goyal JP, Bhardwaj P, Yadav P. (2009). Statistical reporting in India pediatrics. Indian Paediatrics. 2009 May; 46(9):811-812.

Bakker M, Wicherts JM. The (mis) reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(3):666–78.

Strasak AM, Zaman Q, Pfeiffer KP, Göbel G, Ulmer H. Statistical errors in medical research-a review of common pitfalls. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007;27, 137(0304):44.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute

Tập 32 Số 1

Thông tin tác giả