A survey of variable selection methods in two Chinese epidemiology journals

Although much has been written on developing better procedures for variable selection, there is little research on how it is practiced in actual studies. This review surveys the variable selection methods reported in two high-ranking Chinese epidemiology journals.

Articles published in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology and the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine were reviewed. Five categories of methods were identified whereby variables were selected using: A--bivariate analyses; B--multivariable analysis; e.g. stepwise or individual significance testing of model coefficients; C--first bivariate analyses, followed by multivariable analysis; D--bivariate analyses or multivariable analysis; and E--other criteria like prior knowledge or personal judgment.

Among the 287 articles that reported using variable selection methods, 6%, 26%, 30%, 21%, and 17% were in categories A through E, respectively. One hundred sixty-three studies selected variables using bivariate analyses, 80% (130/163) via multiple significance testing at the 5% alpha-level. Of the 219 multivariable analyses, 97 (44%) used stepwise procedures, 89 (41%) tested individual regression coefficients, but 33 (15%) did not mention how variables were selected. Sixty percent (58/97) of the stepwise routines also did not specify the algorithm and/or significance levels.

The variable selection methods reported in the two journals were limited in variety, and details were often missing. Many studies still relied on problematic techniques like stepwise procedures and/or multiple testing of bivariate associations at the 0.05 alpha-level. These deficiencies should be rectified to safeguard the scientific validity of articles published in Chinese epidemiology journals.