2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is Determination of Predictors by Cross-Sectional Study Valid?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Different anonymisation rules were used for different countries. Additionally, the data set uses cross-sectional data, thus associations cannot be interpreted as predictive 35. Finally, due to a number of countries failing to fulfil proportional odds assumptions, different regression models were used, hence, caution must be applied when comparing results between countries or generalising the findings of this study to a different sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different anonymisation rules were used for different countries. Additionally, the data set uses cross-sectional data, thus associations cannot be interpreted as predictive 35. Finally, due to a number of countries failing to fulfil proportional odds assumptions, different regression models were used, hence, caution must be applied when comparing results between countries or generalising the findings of this study to a different sample.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main limitation of this study is associated with the cross-sectional design; this means that it is not possible to establish the direction of causality between leisure time activities, executive functions and PTU. Regardless of the results obtained from the SEM model, it is crucial to emphasize that accurate predictions cannot be guaranteed by cross-sectional study [ 44 ]. PTU (dependent variable) would have to occur after structured or unstructured leisure activities (independent variables), and this must be ensured in the prediction model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These relationships were robust, but future studies should investigate them further. Although this study has been carried out in an original way, prediction models resulting from cross-sectional designs can be misleading [ 44 ]. It is, therefore, necessary to consider inverse causation in the interpretation of the results of the present study.…”
Section: Conclusion and Practical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, univariable analysis does not consider the contribution of other exposures. Although multivariable modelling would resolve this, their use in cross-sectional studies is misleading due to a lack of temporality [ 27 ]. Thus, risk factors were assessed individually for a more valid interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%