September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Identification and Recognition of Limitations of Retrospective Studies in Select Peer-reviewed Journal
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Pooja Mehta
    Retina, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Neil M Bressler
    Retina, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Pooja Mehta, None; Neil Bressler, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Unrestricted grants to Retina Division - Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 5556. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Pooja Mehta, Neil M Bressler; Identification and Recognition of Limitations of Retrospective Studies in Select Peer-reviewed Journal. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):5556.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Since retrospective designs can introduce bias or confounding on results, and as such, should be noted by authors. This study aimed to determine how often clinical research publications in select ophthalmology journals that are retrospective in design state “retrospective” design in the title or methods, and how often limitations of that design are mentioned or commented upon in the discussion section.

Methods : Original investigations from three ophthalmology journals with relatively high impact factors as well as a similar specialty journal in otolaryngology and a subspecialty journal in retina were reviewed in 2004 to 2005 and in 2014 to 2015. All original investigations, excluding brief reports; case series; case reports; or observations, were reviewed to determine if the study design was retrospective. Retrospective designs were defined as studies performed after the outcomes of interest had already occurred; most commonly case control studies, but also retrospective cohort or case series.

Results : Journals reviewed included the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, JAMA Otolaryngology, Ophthalmology, and RETINA. Preliminary results suggest that fewer than one-third of all of the articles mentioned in the Discussion section that the retrospective design was a limitation to the interpretation of the results in 2004 to 2005; this increased relatively by 50% to 100% by 2014 to 2015. However, in fewer than 5% of the discussions did the authors mention how the retrospective design might affect the interpretation of the results both last decade and this decade.

Conclusions : Over the past decade, authors in the journals evaluated are more likely to indicate that a retrospective study has limitations that can affect the interpretation of the results, but few authors indicate exactly how those limitations might affect the interpretation of the results.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×