Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21487486›Full record

ArticleHippokratia2010

Methods and Biostatistics: a concise guide for peer reviewers.

A Kyrgidis, S Triaridis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hippokratia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. COVID-19 research: quality of biostatistics.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A Kyrgidis
S Triaridis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the Materials and Methods section of a scientific manuscript is to provide information in sufficient detail, so that another scientist working in the same field of endeavor is able to repeat the experiments and reproduce the results. Authors are entitled to a justified decision on the publication or not of their work. Thus, reviewers need to assure the authors that they have studied, correctly interpreted and fairly judged their work. This can be done by writing a short introductory paragraph in their critique, mentioning the type of study, the subjects recruited, the time and places the study was conducted, the interventions, the outcome measures and the statistical tests. All these information should be found in the methods section. If the reviewer cannot find these information, he needs not to read the whole article. Reading through the abstract and the methods section, he can reject the article on good grounds. If the methods section is appropriate, then the whole article need to be further reviewed. In this manuscript we shall discuss several critical aspects of the methods and statistics from the reviewer's perspective to provide reviewers the knowledge basis to write the aforementioned introductory paragraph of their critique.

Indexed as

biasguidelinesmethodspeer reviewstatisticsstudy

Identifiers

PMID21487486
PMCPMC3049416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.