Mistakes in epidemiological study design in gastroenterology and how to avoid them

Filters:

UEG Mistakes In Articles

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

Mistakes in epidemiological study design in gastroenterology and how to avoid them

Tomer Adar, Kate Mary Fleming

Summary

AI Generated

This article addresses common pitfalls in epidemiological research within gastroenterology that can reduce the utility of studies intended to advance evidence-based medicine.

Primary research in gastroenterology is fundamental to evidence-based medicine, pushing scientific boundaries and underpining decisions on patient treatment.
Many gastroenterology professionals are directly involved in conducting epidemiological research.
The article discusses common pitfalls that may render epidemiological research less useful than hoped.
The authors emphasize from experience that having the right mix of people and skills from the project outset is critical.
Collaborative research with diverse backgrounds and knowledge bases is presented as producing better and more enjoyable research outcomes.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

This summary was generated by an AI large language model based on the content transcript. It is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment. Always rely on your professional expertise and the full clinical context when making clinical decisions.

References

Mistakes

References

Mistake 1 Mistake 2 Mistake 3 Mistake 4 Mistake 5 Mistake 6 Mistake 7 Mistake 8 Mistake 9 Mistake 10

Hulley S, et al. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2007.

Haynes RB, et al. How to do clinical practice research: a new book and a new series in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 873–875. [Link]

Booth A, Papaioannou D and Sutton A. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2012.

Poklepović Peričić T and Tanveer S. ‘Why systematic reviews matter. A brief history, overview and practical guide for authors’, Elsevier Authors’ update [https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/why-systematic-reviews-matter] (2019, accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

Mahood Q, Van Eerd D and Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research synthesis methods 2014; 5: 221–234. [Link]

Richardson WS, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12–A13. [Link]

Guyatt G, et al. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992; 268: 2420–2425. [Link]

Straus SE, et al. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, 2010.

Guyatt GH, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800–1804. [Link]

10.

Deaton A and Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine 2018; 210: 2–21. [Link]

11.

Bonita, R, et al. Basic epidemiology. 2nd ed. World Health Organization, 2006. [Link]

12.

Maathuis MH and Nandy P. A review of some recent advances in causal inference. In: Bülhmann P, et al. (eds) Handbook of Big Data. New York, Chapman and Hall/CRC, TaylorFrancis, 2016. [Link]

13.

Sackett DL and Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ 1997; 315: 1636. [Link]

14.

Allen M. Defining variables, In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. USA, SAGE Publications, Inc., 2017. [Link]

15.

Nelson EC, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in practice BMJ 2015; 350: g7818. [Link]

16.

The Lancet. Research: increasing value, reducing waste [https://www.thelancet.com/series/research] (2014, accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

17.

Academy of Medical Sciences. Reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: improving research practice [https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/38189-56531416e2949.pdf] (2015, accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

18.

Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2005; 2: e124. [Link]

19.

Concato J and Hartigan JA. P values: from suggestion to superstition J Investig Med 2016; 64: 1166–1171. [Link]

20.

Vickerstaff V, Omar, R & Ambler G. Methods to adjust for multiple comparisons in the analysis and sample size calculation of randomised controlled trials with multiple primary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19: 129. [Link]

21.

Greenland S. Power, sample size and smallest detectable effect determination for multivariate studies. Stat Med 1985; 4: 117–127. [Link]

22.

Porta MS, Greenland S and Last JM. Dictionary of Epidemiology. 5th ed. USA, Oxford University Press, 2008.

23.

World Gastroenterology Organisation. Sample Size Calculation [https://www.worldgastroenterology.org/education-and-training/clinical-research-tools/sample-size-calculation] (accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

24.

World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. [https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/] (1964–2008, accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

25.

European Union. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [https://gdpr-info.eu/] (2018, accessed 28 August, 2020). [Link]

Abstract

Conducting primary research and creating new knowledge is how we push the boundaries of science, how we assess new and/or alternative treatments, and ultimately what underpins decisions on who to treat, when, and how to treat them. It is fundamental to the concept of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Many people working within the field of gastroenterology will be directly involved in conducting epidemiological research. In this article, we discuss some of the common pitfalls that may render such research less useful than hoped. This is, of course, a brief overview and if we were able to stress one thing from our experience of conducting research it would be to ensure that you have the right mix of people and skills in place from the outset of your project. Collaborative research allows people with different backgrounds and knowledge bases to address a single problem from different angles, and ultimately makes for better, and more enjoyable, research.

Topics

Education & Training

Citation

Adar T and Fleming KM . Mistakes in epidemiological study design in gastroenterology and how to avoid them. UEG Education 2020; 20: 20–24.

Published

2020

More Like This:

Mistakes in the management of unexplained diarrhoea and how to avoid them

Magnus Simrén

Mistakes in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease and how to avoid them

Neil Chanchlani

European Guideline on Pre-Operative Prevention of Surgical Site Infections Following Digestive Surgery: A Joint Update of the WHO SSI Guideline for Gastrointestinal Surgery by UEG, ESCP, EAES, and SIS-E

Adele Sayers

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review

Antonio Facciorusso

Mistakes in rumination syndrome and how to avoid them

Elizabeth Barba Orozco

Guideline for the assessment and management of gastrointestinal symptoms following colorectal surgery—A UEG/ESCP/EAES/ESPCG/ESPEN/ESNM/ESSO collaboration. Part II—Good practice guidance | sequelae to benign diseases

Anke Gielen