Publications by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Urology: The Quality of Research Design and Statistical Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We provide a systematic assessment of the quality of research methodology, statistical analysis and reporting in 2 recent pediatric supplements of The Journal of Urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All original clinical publications in 2 Pediatric Supplements of The Journal of Urology (2005 and 2007) were identified for formal review. We collected data on variables indicating the quality of methodology and statistical analysis. Two independent reviewers with formal training in clinical epidemiology reviewed each article. RESULTS: Of the 103 published articles 92 met study inclusion criteria. Common study designs included a retrospective cohort in 68% of articles and a prospective cohort in 17%. Demographic statistics were incomplete in many articles, that is in 24% no measure of central tendency and in 18% no measures of dispersion were provided. In 40% of articles the statistical methods were not clearly described. Of all studies eligible for univariate or multivariate analysis only 52% and 23%, respectively, provided the appropriate analysis. Deficiencies in reporting and interpreting p values, ORs/RRs and CIs were noted in 53%, 83% and 78% of studies, respectively. Limitations of studies, such as biases and confounders, were only acknowledged in a third of articles. Comparison of articles published in 2005 vs 2007 revealed a significant improvement in reporting the results of multivariate analysis (p = 0.0297). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and statistical shortcomings were common in our sampling of the pediatric urology literature. This may result in misleading conclusions. Pediatric urologists are encouraged to involve colleagues with formal training in research design from the outset of their studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.391 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".