PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Camila Olarte Parra
AU  - Lorenzo Bertizzolo
AU  - Sara Schroter
AU  - Agnès Dechartres
AU  - Els Goetghebeur
TI  - Use of causal claims in observational studies: a research on research study
AID  - 10.1101/2020.09.17.20194530
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.09.17.20194530
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.17.20194530.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.17.20194530.full
AB  - Objective To evaluate the consistency of causal statements in the abstracts of observational studies published in The BMJ.Design Research on research study.Data source All cohort or longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ during 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports.Main outcome measures:Proportion of published research papers with ‘inconsistent’ use of causal language in the abstract. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as ‘consistently causal’ or ‘consistently not causal’, respectively; those where causality may be inferred were classified as ‘suggests causal’. For the ‘inconsistent’ papers, we then compared the published and submitted version.Results Of 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as ‘consistently causal’ (13%), ‘suggests causal’ (35%), ‘inconsistent’ (20%) and ‘consistently not causal’(32%). The majority of the ‘Inconsistent’ papers (92%) were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions was mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented.Conclusion Further guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these abstracts, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious ‘cause’ word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language.Strengths and limitations of this studyWe present examples of ambiguous causal statements in published abstracts of observational studies in a high impact journalWe focused on the abstract where clear messages are especially important, as many readers just read the abstract of a studyThe focus on the abstract may miss further discussion on the validity of underlying assumptions justifying causal inference in the setting studied.The prevalence and nature of the problems found is a call for better instruction on and consideration of causal language throughout the editorial process in clinical and epidemiological research.We provide a list of words and study elements that could point in the direction of causality or otherwise, which may inspire a more comprehensive compendium.Competing Interest StatementSS is a full-time employee of the BMJ Publishing Group. No other conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementThis project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 676207Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study used routinely collected data. When authors and reviewers submit manuscripts and reviews to The BMJ, they are notified that their paper or review may be entered into research projects for quality improvement purposes.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe reviews and published versions of the papers included in the study are publicly available at BMJ.com. No further data will be made available as it is confidential submission data.