ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2022
COVID-19 research: quality of biostatistics.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key statistical recommendations for medical journals: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study Collaborators.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Using ChatGPT in Statistical Analysis: Recommendations forJACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Summary of 2023 and the biggest challenges for the "Archives of Medical Science" on its 20Archives of medical science : AMS · 2024Article
- ChatGPT's Skills in Statistical Analysis Using the Example of Allergology: Do We Have Reason for Concern?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- COVID-19 research in South Asia: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2023Review
- Precision medicine in oncology - machine learning recommendations.American journal of cancer research · 2023Article
- Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updatedF1000Research · 2023Article
- Statistical recomendations for the authors of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, unfortunately, low quality of statistical analyses in medicine has been observed. As it turns out, this also applies to COVID-19 subject matter.
methodsThe study included 2600 medical articles published between the beginning of 2020 and June 2021, in which the authors described the obtained results, i.e. related to COVID-19.
resultsOf the analysed articles, 39% were correct in terms of the statistical analysis performed.
conclusionsThere should be more emphasis on conducting statistical reviews in authors' contributions on various aspects of COVID-19.
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.