Systematic survey of the causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies: a study protocol

Elaboration and validity of the Instrumento para Avaliação de Modelos metodológicos voltados ao Desenvolvimento de Tecnologias

OBJECTIVE

to elaborate and validate the Instrumento para Avaliação de Modelos metodológicos voltados ao Desenvolvimento de Tecnologias.

METHODS

a methodological study, developed in three stages: instrument structuring through documentary research and researchers' expertise; instrument validity with a panel of 11 expert judge nurses; and instrument final composition.

RESULTS

the instrument, after validity by experts, consisted of 30 items, divided into the content (26 items) and appearance (four items) domains. In the initial instrument validity process, 11 items were modified and seven were withdrawn, as they had a percentage of agreement below 0.80. The instrument showed excellent internal consistency, with values greater than 0.90 in its psychometric criteria.

CONCLUSION

the instrument produced and validated aimed at assessing research methodological models for technological development showed good reliability, and may contribute to the methodological rigor of technological development research in nursing.

Ocular Symptoms in Adolescents and Young Adults With Electronic Cigarette, Cigarette, and Dual Use

Importance

Despite increasing use of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and related health effects among youth, few studies have reported their effects on eyes.

Objective

To examine the frequency and severity of ocular symptoms (ocular discomfort, pain, burning, itching, redness, dryness, glare, blurriness, strain, and headaches) in young e-cigarette and cigarette users.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an observational cross-sectional study, a survey conducted in May 6 to 14, 2020, asked participants about use (ever, past 30 days, and past 7 days) of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. The participants included US individuals aged 13 to 24 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Associations between vision-related outcomes (general vision, severity/frequency of ocular symptoms) and tobacco use were analyzed using weighted multivariable logistic regressions, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, contact lens use, and other combustible use.

Results

There were 2168 never users, 2183 ever users, 1092 past 30-day users, and 919 past 7-day users of e-cigarettes; 55.9% of e-cigarette ever users also used cigarettes (dual users). Of the 4351 respondents, 63.8% identified as female, and mean (SD) age was 19.1 (2.9) years. Between 1.1% and 3.9% of ever dual users reported severe to very severe ocular symptoms; between 0.9% and 4.3% reported daily symptoms, which was higher than the proportion of symptoms in e-cigarette- or cigarette-only users. Past 7-day dual users had more severe itching (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.36-4.13; P = .002), redness (AOR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.50-4.46; P = .001), dryness (AOR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.64-5.08; P < .001), glare (AOR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.50-4.35; P = .001), blurriness (AOR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.36-4.50; P = .003), headaches (AOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.34-4.00; P = .003); and more frequent pain (AOR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.09-5.68; P < .001), burning (AOR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.86-5.09; P < .001), and redness (AOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.69-4.36; P < .001) than all other participants. Past 30-day dual users had more severe dryness (AOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.61-4.36; P < .001) and more frequent pain (AOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.12-5.21; P < .001) than all other participants. Ever dual users experienced more severe dryness (AOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.43; P = .03) and blurriness (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.21-2.64; P = .003) and more frequent pain (AOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53; P = .01) and blurriness (AOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.13-2.36; P = .009) than never users.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional US study, adolescents and young adult users of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes had a higher likelihood of experiencing severe and frequent ocular symptoms, with past 7-day users reporting more symptoms than past 30-day users or ever users. These findings provide additional reasons for users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes to reduce their tobacco use to possibly prevent or minimize ocular symptoms.

Causal and Associational Language in Observational Health Research: A Systematic Evaluation

We estimated the degree to which language used in the high-profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations; examined disconnects between language and recommendations; identified the most common linking phrases; and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched for and screened 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, 3 reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as none (no causal implication) in 13.8%, weak in 34.2%, moderate in 33.2%, and strong in 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was "associate" (45.7%). Reviewers' ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous; over half of reviewers rated "association" as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding "causal" words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.

Causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies is often inconsistent with intent: A systematic survey

OBJECTIVE

We systematically evaluated causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies and explored the relation between language use and the intent of the investigation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Embase, Medline, and Epistemonikos. We randomly selected 199 reviews published in 2019, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by use and non-use of the GRADE approach to rating quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 199 reviews of observational studies 56.8% had causal intent. Reviews with causal intent were more likely to investigate therapeutic clinical intervention (33.6% vs 12.8%). While 78.8% of those with causal intent used causal language in one or more sections of the title, abstract, or main text, only 4.4% consistently used causal language throughout the manuscript, and 21.2% did not use causal language at all. Of reviews without causal intent, 51.2% used causal language somewhere in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of observational studies sometimes do and sometimes do not have causal intent. Both those are inconsistent in causal language use and often use language inconsistent with the intent. Journal policies would better serve clarity of thinking and appropriateness of inferences by demanding authors clearly specify their intent and consistently use language consistent with that intent.