ReviewThe British journal of radiology2026
Methodological review of the level of statistical support declared in radiological research articles.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesWe assessed if there was disparity between qualified statisticians and other researchers regarding the level of statistical assistance deemed necessary to support radiological research.
methodsWe categorized 50 consecutive, eligible original research articles published in an indexed imaging journal (European Radiology) in 2024, according to authors' statements regarding statistical support, declared in the "Statistics and Biometry" section. Two reviewers extracted data related to study design, statistical methods, and analysis. Two medical statisticians categorized each study as presenting "complex" statistical methods or not and then compared this with authors' own assessment of statistical complexity, stated in the published article. We performed descriptive analyses.
resultsMost studies were observational (49, 98%) and retrospective (38, 76%). 35 (70%) studies were diagnostic, 7 (14%) prognostic, and 6 (12%) mixed. Malignancy was the most frequent topic (29 studies, 58%), and MRI the most frequent modality (35 studies, 70%). We deemed most studies (33, 66%) presented complex statistical methods. Of these, 13 studies (26% overall) declared that "no complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper." However, 10 of these employed hypothesis testing, frequently using multiple methods; 9 employed agreement and/or reliability analyses; all presented accuracy measures; 11 (85%) presented a regression model.
conclusionsWe found that approximately one quarter of original research articles published in our sample stated that "no complex statistical methods were necessary," but then presented complex analyses. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Some radiological researchers may underestimate the complexities of statistical analysis and requirement for specialist statistical support, which risks inappropriate analyses and misleading 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.