Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Assessing the reporting of categorised quantitative variables in observational epidemiological studies

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

One aspect to consider when reporting results of observational studies in epidemiology is how quantitative risk factors are analysed. The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines recommend that researchers describe how they handle quantitative variables when analysing data. For categorised quantitative variables, the authors are required to provide reasons and justifications informing their practice. We investigated and assessed the practices and reporting of categorised quantitative variables in epidemiology.

Methods

The assessment was based on five medical journals that publish epidemiological research. Observational studies published between April and June 2015 and investigating the relationships between quantitative exposures (or risk factors) and the outcomes were considered for assessment. A standard form was used to collect the data, and the reporting patterns amongst eligible studies were quantified and described.

Results

Out of 61 articles assessed for eligibility, 23 observational studies were included in the assessment. Categorisation of quantitative exposures occurred in 61% of these studies and reasons informing the practice were rarely provided. Only one article explained the choice of categorisation in the analysis. Transformation of quantitative exposures into four or five groups was common and dominant amongst studies using equally spaced categories. Dichotomisation was not popular; the practice featured in one article. Overall, the majority (86%) of the studies preferred ordered or arbitrary group categories. Other criterions used to decide categorical boundaries were based on established guidelines such as consensus statements and WHO standards.

Conclusion

Categorisation of continuous variables remains a dominant practice in epidemiological studies. The reasons informing the practice of categorisation within published work are limited and remain unknown in most articles. The existing STROBE guidelines could provide stronger recommendations on reporting quantitative risk factors in epidemiology.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sauerbrei W, Abrahamowicz M, Altman DG, le Cessie S, Carpenter J. Strengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: The STRATOS initiative. Stat Med. 2014;33:5413–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, et al. Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)-An extension of the STROBE statement. Genet Epidemiol. 2009;33:581–98.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Langan S, Schmitt J, Coenraads PJ, Svensson A, von Elm E, Williams H. The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals a literature-based study(EDEN). Arch Dermatol. 2010;146:534–41.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007;18:800–4.CrossRef
5.
Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. Br Med J. 2004;329:883–7.CrossRef
6.
Turner EL, Dobson JE, Pocock SJ. Categorisation of continuous risk factors in epidemiological publications: a survey of current practice. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2010;7:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
MacCallum RC, Zhang SB, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:19–40.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Zhao LP, Kolonel LN. Efficiency loss from categorizing quantitative exposures into qualitative exposures in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136:464–74.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Austin PC, Brunner LJ. Inflation of the type I error rate when a continuous confounding variable is categorized in logistic regression analyses. Stat Med. 2004;23:1159–78.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Streiner DL. Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data. Can J Psychiatr. 2002;47:262–6.CrossRef
12.
Altman DG, Royston P. Statistics notes - The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. Br Med J. 2006;332:1080.CrossRef
13.
14.
Bennette C, Vickers A. Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12.
15.
Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S. Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age. Stat Med. 2007;26:3487–97.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Cumsille F, Bangdiwala SI, Sen PK, Kupper LL. Effect of dichotomizing a continuous variable on the model structure in multiple linear regression models. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2000;29:643–54.CrossRef
17.
Greenland S. Dose-response and trend analysis in epidemiology: alternatives to categorical analysis. Epidemiology. 1995;6:356–65.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lagakos SW. Effects of mismodeling and mismeasuring explanatory variables on tests of their association with a response variable. Stat Med. 1988;7:257–74.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med. 2006;25:127–41.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Taylor JMG, Yu MG. Bias and efficiency loss due to categorizing an explanatory variable. J Multivar Anal. 2002;83:248–63.CrossRef
21.
Web of Science. Journal Citation Reports. Thomson Reuters. 2015.
22.
StataCorp LP. Stata: release 13 - statistical software. 13th ed. College Station: Stata Press; 2013.
23.
Zhang YT, Laraia BA, Mujahid MS, Tamayo A, Blanchard SD, Warton EM, et al. Does food vendor density mediate the association between neighborhood deprivation and BMI?: A G-computation mediation analysis. Epidemiology. 2015;26:344–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Li L, Hardy R, Kuh D, Power C. Life-course body mass index trajectories and blood pressure in mid life in two British birth cohorts: stronger associations in the later-born generation. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:1018–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Victora CG, Horta BL, de Mola CL, Quevedo L, Pinheiro RT, Gigante DP, et al. Association between breastfeeding and intelligence, educational attainment, and income at 30 years of age: a prospective birth cohort study from Brazil. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3:e199–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Gardner RM, Lee BK, Magnusson C, Rai D, Frisell T, Karlsson H, et al. Maternal body mass index during early pregnancy, gestational weight gain, and risk of autism spectrum disorders: results from a swedish total population and discordant sibling study. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:870–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Kaukonen K, Bailey M, Pilcher D, Cooper DJ, Bellomo R. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1629–38.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gauffin K, Vinnerljung B, Hjern A. School performance and alcohol-related disorders in early adulthood: a Swedish national cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:919–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Kodell RL, Chen JJ. Characterization of dose-response relationships inferred by statistically significant trend tests. Biometrics. 1991;47:139–46.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Wang L, Cui L, Wang Y, Vaidya A, Chen S, Zhang C, et al. Resting heart rate and the risk of developing impaired fasting glucose and diabetes: the Kailuan prospective study. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:689–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Guertin KA, Freedman ND, Loftfield E, Graubard BI, Caporaso NE, Sinha R. Coffee consumption and incidence of lung cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;45:929–939.
32.
Becher H. The concept of residual confounding in regression models and some applications. Stat Med. 1992;11:1747–58.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Binder H. Selection of important variables and determination of functional form for continuous predictors in multivariable model building. Stat Med. 2007;26:5512–28.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Liu Z, Fang F, Chang E, Adami H, Ye W. Sibship size, birth order and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and infectious mononucleosis: a nationwide study in Sweden. Int J Epidemiol. 2015.
36.
Maclure M, Greenland S. Tests for trend and dose-response - Misinterpretations and alternatives. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:96–104.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Schmidt CO, Ittermann T, Schulz A, Grabe HJ, Baumeister SE. Linear, nonlinear or categorical: how to treat complex associations in regression analyses? polynomial transformations and fractional polynomials. Int J Public Health. 2013;58:157–60.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Dangers of using optimal cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:829–35.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates - Parsimonious parametric modeling. Appl Stat J Royal Stat Soc Ser C. 1994;43:429–67.
40.
Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:964–74.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Desquilbet L, Mariotti F. Dose-response analyses using restricted cubic spline functions in public health research. Stat Med. 2010;29:1037–57.PubMed
42.
Schmidt CO, Ittermann T, Schulz A, Grabe HJ, Baumeister SE. Linear, nonlinear or categorical: How to treat complex associations? Splines and nonparametric approaches. Int J Public Health. 2013;58:161–5.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Keogh RH, Strawbridge AD, White IR. Effects of classical exposure measurement error on the shape of exposure-disease associations. Epidemiol Methods. 2012;1:13.
Metadata
Title
Assessing the reporting of categorised quantitative variables in observational epidemiological studies
Publication date
01-12-2017
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2137-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Inpatient satisfaction with medical information received from caregivers: an observational study on the effect of social deprivation

Research article

Tribes and tribulations: interdisciplinary eHealth in providing services for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI)

Research article

Migrant’s access to preventive health services in five EU countries

Research article

Comparison of methods to identify long term care nursing home residence with administrative data

Research article

Exploring implementation practices in results-based financing: the case of the verification in Benin

Research article

A qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of telehealthcare devices (ii) barriers to uptake of telehealthcare devices