Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31762475›Full record

ArticleThe American statistician2019

The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else is Known.

Robert J Calin-Jageman, Geoff Cumming

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American statistician, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Associations of Close Social Connections With Smoking and Vaping: A Population Study in England.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  7. Cortical Beta Power Reflects the Influence of Pavlovian Cues on Human Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Robert J Calin-JagemanDominican University, 7900 West Division, River Forest, IL 60305 (rcalinjageman@dom.edu).
Geoff CummingLa Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora, Melbourne VIC, 3086, Australia.

Funding

Transcriptional mechanisms of maintaining and forgetting long-term memoryR15MH107892 · NIMH · DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY · PI CALIN-JAGEMAN, IRINA ELENA, CALIN-JAGEMAN, ROBERT JOSEPH · 2015 to 2025
$1.3M
An Online Short-Course in Sample-Size Determination - A Practical Guide to Improving Reproducibility through Proper PlanningR25GM132784 · NIGMS · DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY · PI CALIN-JAGEMAN, ROBERT JOSEPH · 2019 to 2020
$68k
NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM132784NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH107892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "New Statistics" emphasizes effect sizes, confidence intervals, meta-analysis, and the use of Open Science practices. We present 3 specific ways in which a New Statistics approach can help improve scientific practice: by reducing over-confidence in small samples, by reducing confirmation bias, and by fostering more cautious judgments of consistency. We illustrate these points through consideration of the literature on oxytocin and human trust, a research area that typifies some of the endemic problems that arise with poor statistical practice.

Indexed as

Confidence IntervalsEstimationMeta-AnalysisOpen Sciencethe New Statistics

Identifiers

PMID31762475
PMCPMC6874217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.