Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29531079›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions.

Andrew W Brown, Kathryn A Kaiser, David B Allison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
–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

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. No compelling evidence of sex differences in brain maturation during COVID-19 lockdowns when the sexes are compared statistically.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Integrated data-driven biotechnology research environments.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Replication and Reproducibility and the Self-Correction of Science: What CanJID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  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.

Andrew W BrownOffice of Energetics and Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.ORCID 0000-0002-1758-8205
Kathryn A KaiserOffice of Energetics and Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.ORCID 0000-0002-6258-4369
David B AllisonOffice of Energetics and Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294 allison@iu.edu.

Funding

Why is the prevalence of obesity so high in U.S. Southern States? Regional predictors of BMI and obesity treatment response.P30DK056336 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BARBARA A GOWER · 2000 to 2026
$31.9M
Sex hormones and arthritis in a long lived animal modelP30AG050886 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI DAVID B ALLISON · 2015 to 2026
$11.3M
Strengthening Causal Inference in Behavioral Obesity ResearchR25HL124208 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI ALLISON, DAVID B, BROWN, ANDREW W · 2014 to 2023
$1.8M
The Mathematical Sciences in Obesity ResearchR25DK099080 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI DAVID B ALLISON, Andrew W Brown · 2013 to 2026
$1.2M
Beyond textbook, yet simple, statistical tools for reproducible animal researchR25GM116167 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI ALLISON, DAVID B, BROWN, ANDREW W · 2015 to 2016
$149k
NHLBI NIH HHS R25 HL124208NIA NIH HHS P30 AG050886NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056336NIDDK NIH HHS R25 DK099080NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM116167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some aspects of science, taken at the broadest level, are universal in empirical research. These include collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. In each of these aspects, errors can and do occur. In this work, we first discuss the importance of focusing on statistical and data errors to continually improve the practice of science. We then describe underlying themes of the types of errors and postulate contributing factors. To do so, we describe a case series of relatively severe data and statistical errors coupled with surveys of some types of errors to better characterize the magnitude, frequency, and trends. Having examined these errors, we then discuss the consequences of specific errors or classes of errors. Finally, given the extracted themes, we discuss methodological, cultural, and system-level approaches to reducing the frequency of commonly observed errors. These approaches will plausibly contribute to the self-critical, self-correcting, ever-evolving practice of science, and ultimately to furthering knowledge.

Indexed as

Data CollectionResearch DesignScientific Experimental ErrorHumansQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsScienceStatistics as Topicdata analysisquality controlreproducibilityrigorstatistical errors

Identifiers

PMID29531079
PMCPMC5856502

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.