ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2021
A comparative cross-sectional assessment of statistical knowledge of faculty across five health science disciplines.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overview of statistics teaching within undergraduate programmes in UK and Ireland dental schools.British dental journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and self-efficacy toward evidence-based medicine among resident physicians: a cross-sectional study from Qatar.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Factors influencing research productivity among Syrian medical professionals amidst conflict: a case-control study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Enhancing biostatistics education for medical students in Poland: factors influencing perception and educational recommendations.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Vaccine hesitancy for COVID19: what is the role of statistical literacy?Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to compare statistical knowledge of health science faculty across accredited schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health.
methodsA probability sample of schools was selected, and all faculty at each selected school were invited to participate in an online statistical knowledge assessment that covered fundamental topics including randomization, study design, statistical power, confidence intervals, multiple testing, standard error, regression outcome, and odds ratio.
resultsA total of 708 faculty from 102 schools participated. The overall response rate was 6.5%. Most (94.2%) faculty reported reading the peer-reviewed health-related literature. Respondents answered 66.2% of questions correctly across all questions and disciplines. Public health had the highest performance (80.7%) and dentistry the lowest (53.3%).
conclusionsKnowledge of statistics is essential for critically evaluating evidence and understanding the health literature. These study results identify a gap in knowledge by educators tasked with training the next generation of health science professionals. Recommendations for addressing this gap are provided.
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.