ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Use of Pearson and Spearman correlation testing in Indian anesthesia journals: An audit.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Central adiposity and sex influence lipid and glucose indices in Mexican adults: implications for metabolic risk assessment.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
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
Background and Aims: Correct usage and interpretation of biostatistical tests is imperative. Aim of the present article was to evaluate the use of "correlation test" for biostatistical analysis in two leading Indian journals of anesthesia and sensitize the readers regarding its correct usage. Material and Methods: A prospective analysis was done for all original articles using the correlation test (Pearson or Spearman) that were published in "Indian Journal of Anaesthesia" (IJA) or "Journal of Anaesthesiology and Clinical Pharmacology" (JOACP) in the years 2019 and 2020. Results: Amongst all included original studies, correlation test were used in 6% (JOACP) and 6.5% (IJA) respectively (averaged for the years 2019 and 2020). Correlation test was usedinappropriately) for evaluating an aim of prediction/agreement/comparison, rather than association, in 25% and 10% instances each (JOACP and IJA). In both JOACP and IJA, there were high rates of using and interpreting results without citing 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of correlation coefficient (88% and 90%, respectively), Conclusion: The complete potential of correlation test in exploring research questions is probably underappreciated. Further, even when used, its application and interpretation are prone to errors. We hope that the present analysis and narrative is a well-timed appropriate step in bridging the gaps in existing knowledge regarding use of correlation test in national anesthesia literature.
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.