Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34645855›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Advice on comparing two independent samples of circular data in biology.

Lukas Landler, Graeme D Ruxton, E Pascal Malkemper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Effects of Meteorological Conditions on the Circadian Rhythm of Births.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2025
    Article
  13. Downstream branches of receptor tyrosine kinase signaling act interdependently to shape the face.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Temperature and COScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Lukas LandlerInstitute of Zoology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33/I, 1180, Vienna, Austria. lukas.landler@boku.ac.at.
Graeme D RuxtonSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9TH, UK.
E Pascal MalkemperMax Planck Research Group Neurobiology of Magnetoreception, Center of Advanced European Studies and Research (Caesar), Ludwig-Erhard-Allee 2, 53175, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 32586Austrian Science Fund FWF P32586European Research Council 948728
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many biological variables are recorded on a circular scale and therefore need different statistical treatment. A common question that is asked of such circular data involves comparison between two groups: Are the populations from which the two samples are drawn differently distributed around the circle? We compared 18 tests for such situations (by simulation) in terms of both abilities to control Type-I error rate near the nominal value, and statistical power. We found that only eight tests offered good control of Type-I error in all our simulated situations. Of these eight, we were able to identify the Watson's U

Identifiers

PMID34645855
PMCPMC8514454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.