A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lynn Henry S, Liao Huimin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-09-01
Series:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/87
id doaj-08f2f44731ed485287ef163920988b3e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-08f2f44731ed485287ef163920988b3e2020-11-25T02:51:26ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882010-09-011018710.1186/1471-2288-10-87A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journalsLynn Henry SLiao Huimin<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles published in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology and the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine were reviewed. Five categories of methods were identified whereby variables were selected using: A - bivariate analyses; B - multivariable analysis; e.g. stepwise or individual significance testing of model coefficients; C - first bivariate analyses, followed by multivariable analysis; D - bivariate analyses or multivariable analysis; and E - other criteria like prior knowledge or personal judgment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 287 articles that reported using variable selection methods, 6%, 26%, 30%, 21%, and 17% were in categories A through E, respectively. One hundred sixty-three studies selected variables using bivariate analyses, 80% (130/163) via multiple significance testing at the 5% alpha-level. Of the 219 multivariable analyses, 97 (44%) used stepwise procedures, 89 (41%) tested individual regression coefficients, but 33 (15%) did not mention how variables were selected. Sixty percent (58/97) of the stepwise routines also did not specify the algorithm and/or significance levels.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The variable selection methods reported in the two journals were limited in variety, and details were often missing. Many studies still relied on problematic techniques like stepwise procedures and/or multiple testing of bivariate associations at the 0.05 alpha-level. These deficiencies should be rectified to safeguard the scientific validity of articles published in Chinese epidemiology journals.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/87
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lynn Henry S
Liao Huimin
spellingShingle Lynn Henry S
Liao Huimin
A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
BMC Medical Research Methodology
author_facet Lynn Henry S
Liao Huimin
author_sort Lynn Henry S
title A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_short A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_full A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_fullStr A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_full_unstemmed A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals
title_sort survey of variable selection methods in two chinese epidemiology journals
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Research Methodology
issn 1471-2288
publishDate 2010-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Articles published in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology and the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine were reviewed. Five categories of methods were identified whereby variables were selected using: A - bivariate analyses; B - multivariable analysis; e.g. stepwise or individual significance testing of model coefficients; C - first bivariate analyses, followed by multivariable analysis; D - bivariate analyses or multivariable analysis; and E - other criteria like prior knowledge or personal judgment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 287 articles that reported using variable selection methods, 6%, 26%, 30%, 21%, and 17% were in categories A through E, respectively. One hundred sixty-three studies selected variables using bivariate analyses, 80% (130/163) via multiple significance testing at the 5% alpha-level. Of the 219 multivariable analyses, 97 (44%) used stepwise procedures, 89 (41%) tested individual regression coefficients, but 33 (15%) did not mention how variables were selected. Sixty percent (58/97) of the stepwise routines also did not specify the algorithm and/or significance levels.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The variable selection methods reported in the two journals were limited in variety, and details were often missing. Many studies still relied on problematic techniques like stepwise procedures and/or multiple testing of bivariate associations at the 0.05 alpha-level. These deficiencies should be rectified to safeguard the scientific validity of articles published in Chinese epidemiology journals.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/10/87
work_keys_str_mv AT lynnhenrys asurveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT liaohuimin asurveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT lynnhenrys surveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
AT liaohuimin surveyofvariableselectionmethodsintwochineseepidemiologyjournals
_version_ 1724734523320565760