Comparison of Research Trends in Korean and International Family Medicine in Journals of Family Medicine / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: Research is important for the development of family medicine as a professional field in primary care. The aim of this study was to suggest directions for the development of family medicine research by analyzing research trends in original papers published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine (KJFM) and international journals. METHODS: We investigated original research papers published in KJFM and 4 international journals from August 2009 to July 2010. Analysis was conducted according to research topics, authors, methods, participants, and data sources. RESULTS: 'Clinical research' was the most common research topic in both the KJFM (88.3%) and international journals (57.3%); however, international journals had more studies in other domains ('education and research,' 'health service,' and 'family medicine'). More authors other than family physicians participated in international journals than in the KJFM (58% and 3.3%, respectively). Most studies were 'cross-sectional' in KJFM (77.0%) and international journals (51.5%): however, the latter had more 'qualitative' studies, 'cohort' studies, and 'systematic reviews' than the former. The largest study population was 'visitors of health promotion center' in the KJFM and 'outpatients' in international journals. Most of the study sources were 'survey' and 'medical records' in both. CONCLUSION: There were limitations of diversity in the papers of the KJFM. Future investigation on papers of other than family medicine journals should be planned to assess research trends of family physicians.

The Quality of Reporting of Cohort, Case-Control Studies in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was developed to improve the reporting of observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in cohort studies and case-control studies among observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. METHODS: We searched for cohort studies and case-control studies published as original articles in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine during the period January 1992 through December 2009. The main outcome measures were the number and proportion of cohort studies and case-control studies that reported each of 22 checklist items of STROBE. RESULTS: We identified a total of 84 articles, of which 46 articles were cohort studies and 38 were case-control studies. Concerning methods, study designs (10%), bias (13%), study size (0%), statistical methods (12-c and 12-e items, 0%; 12-d item, cohort study, 6%) have been poorly reported. Of results, participants (5-6%), descriptive data (14-b item, 5%), and funding (1%) among other information have been poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The degree of adherence the STROBE recommendations was relatively low in cohort studies and case-control studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. An effort to improve the reporting of observational studies by application and recommendation of the STROBE statement is required.

Misinterpreting Odds Ratio in the Articles Published in Korean Journal of Family Medicine / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: In reporting results of case-control studies, odds ratios are useful methods of reporting findings. However, odds ratios are often misinterpreted in the literature and by general readers. METHODS: We searched all original articles which were published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine from 1980 to May 2011 and identified those that report "odds ratios." Misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks has been identified. Estimated risk ratios were calculated when possible and compared with odds ratios. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight articles using odds ratios were identified. Among those, 122 articles were analyzed for the frequency of misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks. Twenty-two reports out of these 122 articles misinterpreted odds ratios as relative risks. The percentage of misinterpreting reports decreased over years. Seventy-seven reports were analyzed to compare the estimated risk ratios with odds ratios. In most of these articles, odds ratios were greater than estimated risk ratios, 60% of which had larger than 20% standardized differences. CONCLUSION: In reports published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, odds ratios are frequently used. They were misinterpreted in part of the reports, although decreasing trends over years were observed.

Quality Assessment of Non-Randomized Studies in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: Since the Korean Journal of Family Medicine (KJFM) started publishing in 1980, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) consistently have increased in quality and quantity. Although there have been several studies on the quality assessment of RCTs in Korea, there has been no study on quality assessment of NRSs. Thus, this study evaluated NRS in the KJFM to assess the quantity and quality. METHODS: Upon extracting NRSs for assessing the intervention effects from all the articles published in the KJFM from 1980 to 2006, assessments were made on methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Also, the analysis were made upon the proportion of NRSs within original articles according to two categories (comparative study, noncomparative study). The mean scores by research methods and years, and total scores and mean scores of yearly research methods were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 34 trials on NRSs were selected. In 1980s, 0.65% of the total selected original articles, in 1990s, 1.54%, and in 2000s 5.11% were NRSs. According to the research designs, the mean scores of MINORS were before and after study 8.5, interrupted Time Series 9.7 (out of 16), controlled before and after 13.5, quasi randomized trial 12.6, and non randomized trial 13 (out of 24). Before and after design was the most frequently used (55.9%). CONCLUSION: Although NRSs consistently increased in quantity, the assessed mean scores were low and most articles used before and after design. Thus, there should be studied using appropriate research methods in the future.