ReviewJournal of renal injury prevention2015
Important statistical points to improve and promote the methodology of the articles on medical sciences, particularly nephrology and kidney; a review article.
Review in Journal of renal injury prevention, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- - Editorial - Guidelines for experimental design and statistical analyses in animal studies submitted for publication in the Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences.Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences · 2018Article
- Diabetes mellitus and renal failure: Prevention and management.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2015Review
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
backgroundQuality of articles' methodology is one of the important factors which is considered by researchers.
objectivesThis study was conducted to determine statistical guidelines on promotion of methodology's quality in the articles concerning medical sciences, particularly nephrology, to assist authors and reviewers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is a systematic review. Initially, the keywords "Epidemiologic Methods/analysis" [Mesh] OR "Epidemiologic Methods/epidemiology" and "reporting" were selected in Medline database. Then, reliable databases were searched for relevant publications. Being relevant, containing viewpoints, and recommending statistical guidelines as well as approval of at least two of the three examiners of articles were determined as the inclusion criteria into the study.
resultsTwo hundred relevant articles were retrieved. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. By the examined articles, 30 applied points have determinative role for improving and promoting quality of articles methodology. Of the important points, introducing and describing target community and statistical population, mentioning article title, introducing independent and dependent variables as well as confounders, reporting sample size for subgroups and the whole study, summarizing the data according to their statistical distribution (reporting mean and standard deviation for data with normal distribution), reporting the type of rate (incidence, survival), ratio (odds, hazard) or risk (absolute, relative, difference) with 95% CI and the used software could be mentioned.
conclusionThe most important factors contributing greatly to the quality of articles' methodology on nephrology were reported in the present study. Applying these factors by articles authors and reviewers could lead to improve articles' and journals' quality. In addition, use of the findings of the present study in articles' materials and methods could avoid research 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.