ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020
"statcheck": Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential and limitations of a large language model in the statistical review of comparative categorical data: an exploratory study of structured prompt-guided approach.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence to enhance research integrity in evidence-based medicine: toward scalable trustworthiness assessment.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- Evaluation of research methodology generation by large language models in laryngology: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini 1.5 flash.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anaesthesiology research.Anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Article
- The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: Implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Editorial Commitment to Trust and Integrity in Science: Implications for Pain and Anesthesiology Research.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Capturing causal claims: A fine-tuned text mining model for extracting causal sentences from social science papers.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Editorial Commitment to Trust and Integrity in Science: Implications for Pain and Anesthesiology Research.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: Implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2025Article
- Transparency, quality, and statistical consistency of meta-analytic systematic reviews in clinical child and adolescent psychology (2022-2024): study protocol for a meta-review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- AI for scientific integrity: detecting ethical breaches, errors, and misconduct in manuscripts.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Research design and writing of scholarly articles: new artificial intelligence tools available for researchers.Endocrine · 2024Article
- Article
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
We present the R package and web app statcheck to automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies in primary studies and meta-analyses. Previous research has shown a high prevalence of reported p-values that are inconsistent - meaning a re-calculated p-value, based on the reported test statistic and degrees of freedom, does not match the author-reported p-value. Such inconsistencies affect the reproducibility and evidential value of published findings. The tool statcheck can help researchers to identify statistical inconsistencies so that they may correct them. In this paper, we provide an overview of the prevalence and consequences of statistical reporting inconsistencies. We also discuss the tool statcheck in more detail and give an example of how it can be used in a meta-analysis. We end with some recommendations concerning the use of statcheck in meta-analyses and make a case for better reporting standards of statistical results.
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.