Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27858205›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of epidemiology2017

Statistical inference in abstracts of major medical and epidemiology journals 1975-2014: a systematic review.

Andreas Stang, Markus Deckert, Charles Poole, Kenneth J Rothman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The reporting ofPeerJ · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ImbalanceClinical epidemiology · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Significance testing: Why does it prevail?European journal of epidemiology · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andreas StangCenter of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital of Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. andreas.stang@uk-essen.de.
Markus DeckertCenter of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital of Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Charles PooleDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, CB #7435, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7435, USA.
Kenneth J RothmanRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, 200 Park Offices Dr, Durham, NC, 27703, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its introduction in the twentieth century, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), a hybrid of significance testing (ST) advocated by Fisher and null hypothesis testing (NHT) developed by Neyman and Pearson, has become widely adopted but has also been a source of debate. The principal alternative to such testing is estimation with point estimates and confidence intervals (CI). Our aim was to estimate time trends in NHST, ST, NHT and CI reporting in abstracts of major medical and epidemiological journals. We reviewed 89,533 abstracts in five major medical journals and seven major epidemiological journals, 1975-2014, and estimated time trends in the proportions of abstracts containing statistical inference. In those abstracts, we estimated time trends in the proportions relying on NHST and its major variants, ST and NHT, and in the proportions reporting CIs without explicit use of NHST (CI-only approach). The CI-only approach rose monotonically during the study period in the abstracts of all journals. In Epidemiology abstracts, as a result of the journal's editorial policy, the CI-only approach has always been the most common approach. In the other 11 journals, the NHST approach started out more common, but by 2014, this disparity had narrowed, disappeared or reversed in 9 of them. The exceptions were JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet abstracts, where the predominance of the NHST approach prevailed over time. In 2014, the CI-only approach is as popular as the NHST approach in the abstracts of 4 of the epidemiology journals: the American Journal of Epidemiology (48%), the Annals of Epidemiology (55%), Epidemiology (79%) and the International Journal of Epidemiology (52%). The reporting of CIs without explicitly interpreting them as statistical tests is becoming more common in abstracts, particularly in epidemiology journals. Although NHST is becoming less popular in abstracts of most epidemiology journals studied and some widely read medical journals, it is still very common in the abstracts of other widely read medical journals, especially in the hybrid form of ST and NHT in which p values are reported numerically along with declarations of the presence or absence of statistical significance.

Indexed as

Confidence intervalsStatisticsStatistics and numerical data

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.