ArticleJournal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics2011
Quality of reporting statistics in two Indian pharmacology journals.
Article in Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research design and statistical methods in Indian medical journals: a retrospective survey.PloS one · 2015Article
- Statistical reporting in the "Clujul Medical" journal.Clujul medical (1957) · 2015Article
- Review
- Policy of reviewing statistics in Indian medical and surgical journals.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2013Article
- Developing a Supercourse Help Desk for India.Central Asian journal of global health · 2013Article
- Quality of antidepressant drugs research articles published in Indian medical journals.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2011Article
- Research design and statistical methods in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (PJMS).Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reporting of the statistical methods in articles published in two Indian pharmacology journals. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll original articles published since 2002 were downloaded from the journals' (Indian Journal of Pharmacology (IJP) and Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology (IJPP)) website. These articles were evaluated on the basis of appropriateness of descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics was evaluated on the basis of reporting of method of description and central tendencies. Inferential statistics was evaluated on the basis of fulfilling of assumption of statistical methods and appropriateness of statistical tests. Values are described as frequencies, percentage, and 95% confidence interval (CI) around the percentages.
resultsInappropriate descriptive statistics was observed in 150 (78.1%, 95% CI 71.7-83.3%) articles. Most common reason for this inappropriate descriptive statistics was use of mean ± SEM at the place of "mean (SD)" or "mean ± SD." Most common statistical method used was one-way ANOVA (58.4%). Information regarding checking of assumption of statistical test was mentioned in only two articles. Inappropriate statistical test was observed in 61 (31.7%, 95% CI 25.6-38.6%) articles. Most common reason for inappropriate statistical test was the use of two group test for three or more groups.
conclusionArticles published in two Indian pharmacology journals are not devoid of statistical errors.
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.