The quality of published ecological papers in top journals

Document Type : Systematic Review

Authors

1 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 HIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Jiroft University of Medical Sciences, Jiroft, Iran.

10.34172/jhad.1181

Abstract

Background: Ecological studies explore the relationships among variables in sub-populations, aiming to generate hypotheses; however, they are prone to errors. We explored two main types of errors in published ecological articles. These errors were “ecological fallacy” and “ignored lag time between exposure and outcome.”
Methods: We reviewed the published ecological articles in 100 top medical and public health journals based on their impact factors in Scopus from January 2020 to December 2022. We found only 13 journals with at least one published ecological article (IF between 1.3 and 13.3).
Results: A total of 68 ecological articles were extracted and reviewed. Ecological fallacy was found in 23% of the 40 studies. Although ignored lag time should have been considered in 21% of the studies, only 36.0% of them mentioned it.
Conclusion: Despite the importance of ecological research, especially in understanding complex environmental and health-related issues, many studies failed to adequately address critical methodological factors such as ecological fallacy (EF) and ignored lag time (LT). Although most researchers are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of ecological studies, they did not mention them and take them into account.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Sedgwick P. Understanding the ecological fallacy. BMJ. 2015;351:h4773. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4773.
Cataldo R, Arancibia M, Stojanova J, Papuzinski C. General concepts in biostatistics and clinical epidemiology: observational studies with cross-sectional and ecological designs. Medwave. 2019;19(8):e7698. doi: 10.5867/medwave.2019.08.7698.
Parmesan C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006;37(1):637-69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100.
Hansell AL, Best NG, Rushton L. Lessons from ecological and spatial studies in relation to occupational lung disease. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;9(2):87-92. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832921f3.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GA, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403(6772):853-8. doi: 10.1038/35002501.
Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001;294(5543):804-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1064088.
Sedgwick P. Ecological studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ. 2014;348:g2979. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2979.
Meiring S, Tempia S, Dominic EM, de Gouveia L, McAnerney J, von Gottberg A, et al. Excess invasive meningococcal disease associated with seasonal influenza, South Africa, 2003-2018. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74(10):1729-35. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab702.
Protogerou C, Hagger MS. A checklist to assess the quality of survey studies in psychology. Meth Psychol. 2020;3:100031. doi: 10.1016/j.metip.2020.100031.
Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman DG, et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(7):718-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013.
Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24.
Lokar K, Zagar T, Zadnik V. Estimation of the ecological fallacy in the geographical analysis of the association of socio-economic deprivation and cancer incidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(3):296. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030296.
Reade MC, Delaney A, Bailey MJ, Angus DC. Bench-to-bedside review: avoiding pitfalls in critical care meta-analysis--funnel plots, risk estimates, types of heterogeneity, baseline risk and the ecologic fallacy. Crit Care. 2008;12(4):220. doi: 10.1186/cc6941.
Roumeliotis S, Abd ElHafeez S, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Stel VS, Pitino A, et al. Be careful with ecological associations. Nephrology (Carlton). 2021;26(6):501-5. doi: 10.1111/nep.13861.
Gnaldi M, Tomaselli V, Forcina A. Ecological fallacy and covariates: new insights based on multilevel modelling of individual data. Int Stat Rev. 2018;86(1):119-35. doi: 10.1111/insr.12244.
Gujral H, Sinha A. Association between exposure to airborne pollutants and COVID-19 in Los Angeles, United States with ensemble-based dynamic emission model. Environ Res. 2021;194:110704. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110704.
Health and Development Journal
Volume 12, Issue 4
November 2023
Pages 152-155

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 April 2025
  • Revise Date: 17 April 2025
  • Accept Date: 28 May 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics