ArticleeLife2019
Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.
Article in eLife, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
111 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of thresholding methods for activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis via large-scale simulations.Human brain mapping · 2022Pooled it
- A Handful of Details to Ensure the Experimental Reproducibility on the FORCED Running Wheel in Rodents: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Pooled it
- The neurobiological markers of acute alcohol's subjective effects in humans.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Trial
- Acyclovir and ganciclovir exposure and short-term outcomes in hospitalized children with EBV-associated mononucleosis-like illness: a retrospective cohort study using inverse probability of treatment weighting.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Claims of sex-dependent effects in the behavioral and brain sciences are infrequently supported by valid statistical comparisons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of rearing environment on C. elegans: phenotypic, transcriptomic and intergenerational responses to 3D enriched habitats.Biology open · 2026Article
- The "sex-specific effect:" Evaluating analytical approaches to sex-dependence in the behavioral and brain sciences.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Evaluating human-machine collaboration through a comparative analysis of experts, machine learning, and hybrid approaches in real estate valuation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing chance in neuro-vascular interactions.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Sand-based therapy in pediatrics: a narrative review of traditional and digital sand therapy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Beyond pitch: temporal processing deficits in congenital amusia.Psychological research · 2025Article
- The impact of rearing environment onbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Effective Statistics Are Essential for Strengthening a Paper in Brain and Behavior.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- A simple guide to the use of Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, and Kruskal-Wallis test in biostatistics.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Abrupt and Gradual Changes in Neuronal Processing upon Falling Asleep and Awakening.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Novel Artificial Intelligence-Based Quantification of Anterior Chamber Inflammation Using Vision Transformers.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- A teaching proposal for a short course on biomedical data science.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Practical considerations for data exploration in quantitative cell biology.Journal of cell science · 2025Article
51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inspired by broader efforts to make the conclusions of scientific research more robust, we have compiled a list of some of the most common statistical mistakes that appear in the scientific literature. The mistakes have their origins in ineffective experimental designs, inappropriate analyses and/or flawed reasoning. We provide advice on how authors, reviewers and readers can identify and resolve these mistakes and, we hope, avoid them in the future.
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.