ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022
Statistics decrypted-a comprehensive review and smartphone-assisted five-step approach for good statistical practice.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective study comparing acute toxicity and objective response rate between simultaneous integrated boost and sequential boost Intensity-Modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Trial
- Comparative analysis of antibacterial and antioxidant properties as well as phytochemical compositions of Moringa oleifera gum, flower, and fruit and Elaeocarpus augustifolius leaf and bark, synergistic with Pleurotus membranaceus.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2026Article
- Palliative psychological care in Germany: Results of a national online survey with psychologists and psycho-oncologists in specialist palliative care settings.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Routine Ophthalmological Examination Rates in Adults with Sickle Cell Disease Are Low and Must Be Improved.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Screening of dysphagia in geriatrics.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistic scripts are often made by mathematicians and cryptic for clinicians or non-mathematician scientists. Nevertheless, almost all research projects necessitate the application of some statistical tests or at least an understanding thereof. The present review aims on giving an overview of the most common statistical terms and concepts. It further ensures good statistical practice by providing a five-step approach guiding the reader to the correct statistical test. METHODS AND
resultsFirst, different types of variables and measurements to describe a data set with means of descriptive statistics are introduced. The basic thoughts and tools of interferential statistics are presented, and different types of bias are discussed. Then in the final paragraph, the most commonly used statistical tests are described. A smartphone app accessible via QR code finally guides the reader in five steps to the correct statistical test, depending on the data used in order to avoid commonly performed mistakes.
conclusionsThe five-step approach sets a new minimal standard for good statistical practice.
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.