Open AccessPatterns and trends in quality of response rate reporting in case-control studies of cancer
Author(s) -
Mengting Xu,
Lesley Richardson,
Sally Campbell,
Javier Pintos,
Jack Siemiatycki
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of epidemiological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2377-9330
pISSN - 2377-9306
DOI - 10.5430/jer.v3n2p13
Subject(s) - medicine , quality (philosophy) , population , epidemiology , interrupted time series , control (management) , environmental health , demography , gerontology , pathology , computer science , psychiatry , philosophy , epistemology , artificial intelligence , sociology , psychological intervention
Purpose: We assessed the quality of reporting of response rates in published case-control studies of cancer over the past fourdecades.Methods: We reviewed all case-control studies of cancer published in twelve major epidemiology, public health, and generalmedicine journals in four publication periods (1984-86, 1995, 2005, and 2013). Information on study base ascertainment, datacollection methods, population characteristics, response rates, and reasons for non-participation was extracted. Quality of responserate reporting was assessed based on the amount of pertinent information reported, and in particular, numbers of non-participantsby reasons for non-participation. We calculated subject response rates by quality of response rate reporting.Results: A total of 370 studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding a total of 370 case series and 422 control series. Overall,the quality of reporting of response rate and reasons for non-participation was poor. There was a tendency for better quality ofreporting of case series, followed by population control series, and lastly by medical source control series. Quality of reportingdeclined from 1995 to 2013.Conclusion: The reporting of relevant information on response rates in case-control studies of cancer has been rather poor, and ithas not improved over time. This compromises our ability to assess validity of studies’ findings.