ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care
Statistical methods and errors in family medicine articles between 2010 and 2014-Suez Canal University, Egypt: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and Prevention of Reproducibility Deficiencies in Life Sciences Research: Large-Scale Meta-Analyses.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Pooled it
- Statistical Reporting Quality in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Journals: A Comparative Analysis of SCI-E and TR Indexed Publications.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Statistics: Choosing the Correct Statistical Test.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Statistical Accuracy in Rheumatology Research.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith limited statistical knowledge of most physicians it is not uncommon to find statistical errors in research articles.
objectivesTo determine the statistical methods and to assess the statistical errors in family medicine (FM) research articles that were published between 2010 and 2014.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. All 66 FM research articles that were published over 5 years by FM authors with affiliation to Suez Canal University were screened by the researcher between May and August 2015. Types and frequencies of statistical methods were reviewed in all 66 FM articles. All 60 articles with identified inferential statistics were examined for statistical errors and deficiencies. A comprehensive 58-item checklist based on statistical guidelines was used to evaluate the statistical quality of FM articles.
resultsInferential methods were recorded in 62/66 (93.9%) of FM articles. Advanced analyses were used in 29/66 (43.9%). Contingency tables 38/66 (57.6%), regression (logistic, linear) 26/66 (39.4%), and t-test 17/66 (25.8%) were the most commonly used inferential tests. Within 60 FM articles with identified inferential statistics, no prior sample size 19/60 (31.7%), application of wrong statistical tests 17/60 (28.3%), incomplete documentation of statistics 59/60 (98.3%), reporting P value without test statistics 32/60 (53.3%), no reporting confidence interval with effect size measures 12/60 (20.0%), use of mean (standard deviation) to describe ordinal/nonnormal data 8/60 (13.3%), and errors related to interpretation were mainly for conclusions without support by the study data 5/60 (8.3%).
conclusionInferential statistics were used in the majority of FM articles. Data analysis and reporting statistics are areas for improvement in FM research articles.
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.