ArticleBMC medical research methodology2004
Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessments of Research Competencies for Clinical Investigators: A Systematic Review.Evaluation & the health professions · 2021Pooled it
- Progesterone for premenstrual syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Self-medication of migraine and tension-type headache: summary of the evidence-based recommendations of the Deutsche Migräne und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (DMKG), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN), the Österreichische Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (ÖKSG) and the Schweizerische Kopfwehgesellschaft (SKG).The journal of headache and pain · 2011Guideline
- Can large language models accurately compute descriptive statistics from structured datasets? A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Potential and limitations of a large language model in the statistical review of comparative categorical data: an exploratory study of structured prompt-guided approach.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT-5, Claude, and DeepSeek for statistical analysis in medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Editorial: Reproducibility and rigour in infectious diseases - surveillance, prevention and treatment.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2023Article
- Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021Article
- Discrepancies between Conference Abstracts and Published Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery Studies: A Retrospective Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
- Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies.Biochemia medica · 2021Article
- Methodological Biases in CBT Trial-Commentary: Modular Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Affective Symptoms in Young Individuals at Ultra-High Risk of First Episode of Psychosis: Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Statistical errors in articles published in radiology journals.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2019Article
- Use of reproducible research practices in public health: A survey of public health analysts.PloS one · 2018Article
- The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2017Review
- Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research Translation.Circulation research · 2017Review
- Assessment of Statistical Methodologies and Pitfalls of Dissertations Carried Out at National Cancer Institute, Cairo UniversityAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven an observed test statistic and its degrees of freedom, one may compute the observed P value with most statistical packages. It is unknown to what extent test statistics and P values are congruent in published medical papers.
methodsWe checked the congruence of statistical results reported in all the papers of volumes 409-412 of Nature (2001) and a random sample of 63 results from volumes 322-323 of BMJ (2001). We also tested whether the frequencies of the last digit of a sample of 610 test statistics deviated from a uniform distribution (i.e., equally probable digits).
results11.6% (21 of 181) and 11.1% (7 of 63) of the statistical results published in Nature and BMJ respectively during 2001 were incongruent, probably mostly due to rounding, transcription, or type-setting errors. At least one such error appeared in 38% and 25% of the papers of Nature and BMJ, respectively. In 12% of the cases, the significance level might change one or more orders of magnitude. The frequencies of the last digit of statistics deviated from the uniform distribution and suggested digit preference in rounding and reporting.
conclusionsThis incongruence of test statistics and P values is another example that statistical practice is generally poor, even in the most renowned scientific journals, and that quality of papers should be more controlled and valued.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.