Clasificación errónea de estudios observacionales analíticos sobre neurociencias de autores afiliados a instituciones colombianas: Una revisión de alcance

Abstract

Introduction: Much of the contemporary medical literature is made up of observational studies, these reaching more than half of the total number of publications from various medical specialties. Proper classification of study designs is important for the review and evaluation of the scientific literature. Recent research published in two of the most influential neurosurgery journals in the world reported that 40% to 60% of observational studies were misclassified. Thus, frequent confusion was evidenced between case-control designs and cohort studies. This misclassification of the type of study can lead to an inadequate analysis of the data or a misinterpretation of the data. Objective: To identify, following a scope review methodology, errors in the classification of case-control and cohort studies published in journals indexed by authors affiliated with Colombian institutions, in the neuroscience category, during the period 2001-2020. Methodology: A scoping review was conducted following both the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis Manual and the recommendations of the PRISMA-ScR Statement. A literature search was carried out —in the Web Of Science and SCOPUS digital libraries— of studies whose subject was neuroscience and at least one of the main authors was affiliated with a Colombian institution. The research period was the period 2001-2020. Results: 25 studies met all the eligibility criteria. Of these, 16 articles were reported by their lead authors as case-control studies, 8 were reported as cohort studies, and 1 was not completely clear regarding their classification. The frequency of misclassification and mislabeling was found to be 16%. In the quality evaluation, it was found that 64% of the articles had a score of 7 to 9 (high quality), 28% had a score of 4 to 6 (high risk of bias) and 8% did not receive a quality evaluation because it was determined that they were cross-sectional studies. Conclusion: The results of our study reveal that in the case-control and cohort studies published by authors affiliated with Colombian institutions in indexed journals in the neuroscience field (period 2001-2020), the phenomenon of design misclassification is present. The finding of the problem is consistent with the existing evidence in the literature, although it was not presented as frequently when compared with the data obtained in similar studies.