Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200715›Full record

ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2024

A discussion and evaluation of statistical procedures used by JIMB authors when comparing means.

K Thomas Klasson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

K Thomas KlassonU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, New Orleans, LA 70124, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3358-3081
Agricultural Research Service · US

Funding

U.S. Department of Agriculture
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Out of the 166 articles published in Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology (JIMB) in 2019-2020 (not including special issues or review articles), 51 of them used a statistical test to compare two or more means. The most popular test was the (Standard) t-test, which often was used to compare several pairs of means. Other statistical procedures used included Fisher's least significant difference (LSD), Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD), and Welch's t-test; and to a lesser extent Bonferroni, Duncan's Multiple Range, Student-Newman-Keuls, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. This manuscript examines the performance of some of these tests with simulated experimental data, typical of those reported by JIMB authors. The results show that many of the most common procedures used by JIMB authors result in statistical conclusions that are prone to have large false positive (Type I) errors. These error-prone procedures included the multiple t-test, multiple Welch's t-test, and Fisher's LSD. These multiple comparisons procedures were compared with alternatives (Fisher-Hayter, Tukey's HSD, Bonferroni, and Dunnett's t-test) that were able to better control Type I errors. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: The aim of this work was to review and recommend statistical procedures for Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology authors who often compare the effect of several treatments on microorganisms and their functions.

Indexed as

Industrial MicrobiologyPeriodicals as TopicPairwise multiple comparisons proceduresPerformance of statistical testsSimulated experimental data

Identifiers

PMID38200715
PMCPMC10845891
OpenAlexW4390742681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.