Misclassification of Study Designs in the Dermatology Literature

Publication date: Available online 8 November 2017
Source:Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Author(s): Jungyoon Ohn, Sang Jun Eun, Do-Yeop Kim, Hyun-sun Park, Soyun Cho, Hyun-Sun Yoon
BackgroundThe appropriate classification of study designs is important for review and assessment of the relevant scientific literature as a basis for decision-making. However, little is known about whether study designs have been appropriately reported in the dermatology literature.ObjectiveWe aimed to validate the study designs in the dermatology literature and investigate discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs.MethodsWe reviewed all issues of three major dermatology journals from January to December 2016. A total of 295 original articles investigating associations between exposures and health outcomes were included for analysis. We used a validated algorithm to classify the study designs.ResultsAmong the 295 articles, 174 (59.0%) clearly mentioned the study design in the text. All interventional studies were correctly classified based on the study design (n=42); however, 35 (26.5%) of 132 observational studies showed discrepancies between the author-reported and the actual study design. When the author-reported design was a prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, or case-control study (n=61), approximately half these studies were misclassified by the authors (n=30).LimitationsWe analyzed only three journals in the dermatology field.ConclusionsOur findings revealed substantial discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs in the dermatologic literature, particularly among observational studies.