Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29209453›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology2017

Statistical methods and common problems in medical or biomedical science research.

Fengxia Yan, Mayberry Robert, Yonggang Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fengxia YanDepartment of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of MedicineAtlanta, GA, USA.
Mayberry RobertDepartment of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Morehouse School of MedicineAtlanta, GA, USA.
Yonggang LiICFAtlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

Implementing a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE)UL1TR002378 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Andres J Garcia, Elizabeth O. Ofili · 2017 to 2026
$92.1M
Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI) RenewalUL1TR000454 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHENS, DAVID S · 2012 to 2016
$25.8M
Research Desogn and Biostatistics CoreU54MD007588 · NIMHD · MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI KLEMENT, BRENDA · 2012 to 2018
$24.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000454NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002378NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD007588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical thinking is crucial for studies in medical and biomedical areas. There are several pitfalls of using statistics in these areas involving in experimental design, data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. This review paper describes basic statistical design problems in biomedical or medical studies and directs the basic scientists to better use of statistical thinking. The contents of this paper were based on previous literatures and our daily basic support work. It includes the sample size determination and sample allocation in experimental design stage, numerical and graphical data summarization, and statistical test methods as well as the related common errors at design and analytic stages. Literatures and our daily support works show that misunderstanding and misusing of statistical concept and statistical test methods are significant problems. These may include ignoring the sample size and data distribution, incorrect summarization measurement, wrong statistical test methods especially for repeated measures, ignoring the assumption for t-test or ANOVA test, failing to perform the adjustment for multiple comparison. This review intends to help the researchers in basic medical or biomedical areas to enhance statistical thinking and make fewer errors in study design and analysis of their studies.

Indexed as

data summarizationsample size determinationStatistical test methods

Identifiers

PMID29209453
PMCPMC5698693

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.