ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2025
Reporting the standard error of the mean: a critical analysis of three journals in manual medicine.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the realm of biomedical research articles, authors typically utilize descriptive statistics to outline the characteristics of their study samples. The standard deviation (SD) serves to illustrate variability among the individuals in a sample, whereas the standard error of the mean (SEM) conveys the level of uncertainty associated with the sample mean's representation of the population mean. It is not unusual for authors of scientific articles to incorrectly utilize the SEM rather than the SD when explaining data variability. This is problematic because the SEM is consistently smaller than the SD, which could cause readers to underestimate variation in the data. In medical journals, inappropriate use has been found in 14-64% of articles. Moreover, in the field of musculoskeletal health and manual medicine, there is a noticeable absence of literature on the appropriate presentation of statistics.
aimThe aim of this study was to map the frequency of inappropriate reporting of SEM in articles published over a three-year period in three prominent journals in manual medicine.
methodsIn this critical analysis, all articles in three journals - BMC Chiropractic and Manual Therapies (CMT), Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) and Musculoskeletal Science and Practice: An International Journal of Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy (MSP) - published between 2017 and 2019 were analysed based on descriptive statistics that inappropriately or vaguely reported SEMs.
resultsIn total, 790 articles were analysed from the three journals, 487 of which were found to report the SEM. Among these articles, we identified a frequency of 1.4% of inadequate SEM use. The investigation also showed that in 2.5% of the cases, authors did not clarify whether the ± sign presented in text, tables or figures expressed SDs or SEMs.
conclusionThere was a low frequency (1.4%) of inaccurately reported SEMs in scientific journals focusing on manual medicine, which was notably lower than studies conducted in other fields. Additionally, it was noted that in 2.5% of the articles, the ± sign was not adequately defined, which could lead to confusion among readers and hinder the interpretation of the results.
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.