ArticleBMC medical research methodology2006
Error in statistical tests of error in statistical tests.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Policy of reviewing statistics in Indian medical and surgical journals.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2013Article
- The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis?BMC neuroscience · 2010Article
- (Errors in statistical tests)3.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent paper found that terminal digits of statistical values in Nature deviated significantly from an equiprobable distribution, indicating errors or inconsistencies in rounding. This finding, as well as the discovery that a large percentage of p values were inconsistent with reported test statistics, led to a great deal of concern in the popular press and scientific community. The findings ultimately led to new guidelines for all Nature Research Journals.
methodsWe checked the statistical analysis behind the original paper's tests of equiprobability.
resultsThe original paper tested equiprobability with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test outside its regime of validity. Correct tests find no statistically significant deviations from equiprobability for the statistical values in Nature.
conclusionStatistical tests should be used correctly.
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.