Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25343012›Full record

ArticleToxicological research2014

Analysis of Statistical Methods Currently used in Toxicology Journals.

Jihye Na, Hyeri Yang, SeungJin Bae, Kyung-Min Lim

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jihye NaCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Hyeri YangCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
SeungJin BaeCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung-Min LimCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Ewha Womans University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical methods are frequently used in toxicology, yet it is not clear whether the methods employed by the studies are used consistently and conducted based on sound statistical grounds. The purpose of this paper is to describe statistical methods used in top toxicology journals. More specifically, we sampled 30 papers published in 2014 from Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Archives of Toxicology, and Toxicological Science and described methodologies used to provide descriptive and inferential statistics. One hundred thirteen endpoints were observed in those 30 papers, and most studies had sample size less than 10, with the median and the mode being 6 and 3 & 6, respectively. Mean (105/113, 93%) was dominantly used to measure central tendency, and standard error of the mean (64/113, 57%) and standard deviation (39/113, 34%) were used to measure dispersion, while few studies provide justifications regarding why the methods being selected. Inferential statistics were frequently conducted (93/113, 82%), with one-way ANOVA being most popular (52/93, 56%), yet few studies conducted either normality or equal variance test. These results suggest that more consistent and appropriate use of statistical method is necessary which may enhance the role of toxicology in public health.

Indexed as

BiostatisticsDescriptive statisticsInferential statisticsStandard deviationStandard error of meanToxicology

Identifiers

PMID25343012
PMCPMC4206745
OpenAlexW2071118839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.