ArticleBMC medicine2015
How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer.
Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key statistical recommendations for medical journals: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study Collaborators.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case-Control, and Cohort Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Peer review of clinical and translational research manuscripts: Perspectives from statistical collaborators.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- COVID-19 research: quality of biostatistics.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2022Article
- Towards Good Statistical Practice. CORSTAN Validated Questionnaire for Assessing the Correctness of Statistical Analysis in Medical Research.Problemy endokrinologii · 2021Article
- A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord.Spinal cord · 2021Review
- The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- CODECHECK: an Open Science initiative for the independent execution of computations underlying research articles during peer review to improve reproducibility.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Article
- Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers.BMC medicine · 2015Article
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
Statistical analyses presented in general medical journals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BMC Medicine relies on subject reviewers to indicate when a statistical review is required. We consider this policy and provide guidance on when to recommend a manuscript for statistical evaluation. Indicators for statistical review include insufficient detail in methods or results, some common statistical issues and interpretation not based on the presented evidence. Reviewers are required to ensure that the manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly written. Within that context, they are expected to provide constructive feedback and opinion on the statistical design, analysis, presentation and interpretation. If reviewers lack the appropriate background to positively confirm the appropriateness of any of the manuscript's statistical aspects, they are encouraged to recommend it for expert statistical review.
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.