ArticleToxicological research2014
Analysis of Statistical Methods Currently used in Toxicology Journals.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alternatives to statistical decision trees in regulatory (eco-)toxicological bioassays.Archives of toxicology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.