ReviewCureus2024
Evolution in the Use of Statistical Testing in the Field of Orthopedics From 1993 to 2023.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Statistical tests are important tools in research as they provide a systematic and objective approach to analyzing data, testing hypotheses, and drawing conclusions. We investigated the application of statistical tests used in articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) over the last 30 years. We searched PubMed for JBJS articles published from 1993 to 2023 and randomly sampled 5% of articles from each year. Our inclusion criteria identified a selection of articles for review, and we collected and analyzed variables, including statements of significance, significance level, power calculations, usage of statistical tests and methods, power analysis, and orthopedic subspecialties. Articles were grouped into three 10-year periods, and then analysis of variance, Tukey's honestly significant difference, and chi-square tests were conducted to investigate the changes between decade intervals. Our 5% stratified random sample of JBJS publications yielded 593 unique articles, of which 559 were accessible as full-text articles. Common statistical tests included t-test, chi-squared, and ANOVA. The average number of statistical tests per paper increased from 1993-2002 (n = 0.64) to 2013-2023 (n = 1.25) (p value = 0.0009). Among the articles stating alpha levels (n = 156), 0.05 was most prevalent (94%), with 0.01 and 0.1 less commonly used (3.2% and 1.2%, respectively). Article types varied, with "commentary, editor, forum" being the most common (n = 124), followed by retrospective cohort studies (n = 105). The most frequent power goals were 80% and 90%. In studies reporting power calculations, 34% declared adequate power, 14% admitted insufficient power, and 52% did not disclose adequacy. Statistical test and publication trends varied greatly between orthopedic subspecialties. With the increasing usage of statistical tests in orthopedic research, it is increasingly important for readers to have a strong understanding of statistical analysis. This foundational knowledge will enable critical engagement with literature and aid in the growth of the orthopedic field.
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.