ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
The biostatistical minimum.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every day in our clinical practice, probability and statistics are used for a broad variety of actions, including the explanation of levels of risk to patients, the access to clinical guidelines, the understanding of research publications, and the writing of investigation papers for analysing numerical data and treatments options. Therefore, an unintentional statistical misconduct may originate from many sources. It is often difficult to detect, and little is known regarding the prevalence or underlying causes of research misconduct among biomedical researchers. The improvements in teaching statistics to thoracic surgeons should improve the thoughtful of statistical concepts and should reduce the incidence of fallacies. The Biostatistical basis should comprise the aspect of the Biostatistics that surgeons should be aware of correctly interpreting in their research findings: the understanding of p-values, confidence intervals, Student's t-tests, Z test, chi-square goodness of fit, ANOVA tables, and basic statistical models (linear or logistic regression). The understanding of Biostatistics is essential to all thoracic surgeons, and it is not unaware since most received some statistics lessons in their training. The Statistic Corner of the Journal of Thoracic Diseases kept the emphasis on Biostatistical methods to applies and when. Thus, various authors wrote about the analyses of several types of outcomes variables, the analyses of study design, the measures of association and impact, and the general strategies for the statistical analyses. Deceptively, these Statistic Corner articles have only scratched the surface. Nonetheless, we hope that had provided a stimulus to enhance the skills to interpret Biostatistics.
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.