ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2019
Statistical errors in articles published in radiology journals.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Methodological review of the level of statistical support declared in radiological research articles.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- No evidence that ACE2 or TMPRSS2 drive population disparity in COVID risks.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Sample size calculation for data reliability and diagnostic performance: a go-to review.European radiology experimental · 2024Review
- Accelerating Resident Research within Quantitative Collaboration Units in Academic Healthcare.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2024Article
- Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted.Head and neck pathology · 2024Article
- Misinterpretations of Significance Testing Results Near the P-Value Threshold in the Urologic Literature.Cureus · 2023Article
- Replication and Reproducibility and the Self-Correction of Science: What CanJID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2023Article
- An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Statistical Accuracy in Rheumatology Research.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2019Review
- Statistical Reporting Quality in Dental Research: A Comparative Analysis by Journal Impact and Study Design.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate articles in radiology journals indexed in the Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded in terms of statistical errors. By this means, we aim to contribute to the production of high quality scientific publications.
methodsIn this study, a total of 157 articles published in 2016-2017 in 20 radiology journals were reviewed randomly. Selected articles were evaluated for statistical errors regarding P values and statistical tests, and for errors in terminology and other errors related to interpretation. In addition, in order to examine whether the error rates of the articles published in the radiology journals differed according to the impact factor, the statistical errors were compared according to the impact factors of the journals.
resultsOf the 157 articles published in radiology journals, 10 had no statistical errors, while 147 had at least one statistical error. The most frequently encountered error was "errors in summarizing data" with a rate of 66%. This was followed by "incorrect representation of P values" with a rate of 42%. The least frequently encountered error was "statistical symbol errors" with a rate of 3%. There was no statistically significant difference according to impact factors.
conclusionIn conclusion, radiology journals, as do journals in different fields, include articles containing statistical errors. Even when the quality of the journal increases, there is no difference in these statistical error rates. In order to prevent statistical errors in manuscripts, there are responsibilities for both the researchers who conduct scientific studies and the editors who publish these studies in their journals. Researchers should have a basic statistical knowledge, and the editor must submit all manuscripts for a statistical review.
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.