ReviewBMJ paediatrics open2024
Common errors in statistics and methods.
Review in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and Associated Factors of Malnutrition Among Adolescents With Diarrhoea in Bangladesh: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Surveillance Study Using Adaptive LASSO.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Statistical precision ofJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Meta-Analyses under the Microscope: Strengthening Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses in Andrology through Methodological Rigor.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- The critical role of PD-L1 expression in immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Constructing a norm for children's scientific drawing: Distribution features based on semantic similarity of large language models.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Infant and Child Mortality in Afghanistan Wheat and Chaff.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As statistical reviewers and editors for BMJ Paediatrics Open (BMJPO), we frequently see methodological and statistical errors in articles submitted to our journal. To make a list of these common errors and propose suitable corrections, and inspired by similar efforts at other leading journals, we surveyed the statistical reviewers and editors at BMJPO to collect their 'pet peeves' and examples of best practices.(1, 2) We have divided these into seven sections: graphics; statistical significance and related issues; presentation, vocabulary, textual and tabular presentation; causality; model building, regression and choice of methods; meta-analysis; and miscellaneous. Here, we present the common errors, with brief explanations. We hope that the guidance provided here will help guide authors as they prepare their submissions to the journal, leading to higher quality and more robust research reporting.
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.