ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2026
Key statistical recommendations for medical journals: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study Collaborators.
Article in International journal of medical sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biostatistics is essential in personalized medicine, enabling the analysis of complex data, optimizing treatment strategies, and ensuring robust clinical trial designs for patient-specific therapies. The aim of the article was to find out the opinion of Global Burden of Disease Collaborators on the statistical recommendations that should be implemented in medical journals. Materials and Methods: The study involved 150 GBD Collaborators who authored articles between 2018 and 2023 under the research coordination of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The analysis included 11 statistical recommendations and parameters such as the Hirsch index, number of published articles, and scientific seniority. Additionally, opinions were assessed regarding the percentage of accepted scientific manuscripts that meet statistical validity. Results: The key recommendation highlighted by the GBD collaborators is to ensure regular statistical reviews when there is uncertainty about the quality of the authors' analyses (p < 0.001). The remaining recommended guidelines primarily involve the publication of statistical recommendations (50%) and their inclusion on journal websites (53%). The GBD Collaborators, who assert that a lower percentage of accepted articles in medical journals are statistically correct, recommend that authors consult the statistical recommendations posted on journal websites before submitting an article (p = 0.03) and advocate for uniform publication guidelines across journals (p = 0.01). Conclusion: More emphasis should be placed on implementing statistical recommendations in medical journals, not just publishing them.
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.