ArticleThe Eurasian journal of medicine2026
Statistical Reporting Quality in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Journals: A Comparative Analysis of SCI-E and TR Indexed Publications.
Article in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate statistical reporting quality and methodological errors in clinical research articles published in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) and Turkish National Citation Index (TR Dizin).
methodsThis cross-sectional methodological study analyzed original clinical research articles published between January 2024 and January 2025 in 18 PM&R journals indexed in SCI-E and TR Dizin. Articles were evaluated using predefined criteria based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, and the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) guidelines. Statistical reporting practices, methodological indicators, and transparency indicators were assessed. Comparisons between journal groups were performed using Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact tests.
resultsA total of 433 articles were included, of which 358 (82.7%) were published in SCI-E journals and 75 (17.3%) in TR Dizin journals. Mean ± SD was reported in 93.1% of articles, whereas median-based statistics were reported in 47.3%. Normality testing was performed in 72.7% of studies. Effect size reporting was observed in 51.0% of articles. SCI-E journals reported effect sizes more frequently than TR Dizin journals (53.1% vs. 36.0%, P = .004). P reporting errors were more common in TR Dizin journals (21.3% vs. 8.9%, P = .002).
conclusionStatistical reporting deficiencies remain common in PM&R clinical research articles. Although SCI-E indexed journals demonstrate relatively better adherence to recommended statistical practices, important methodological shortcomings persist in both indexing groups. Strengthening statistical education and improving editorial oversight may enhance the methodological quality of rehabilitation research. Cite this article as: Şahbaz T, Yorgancıgil GÖ, Dirican A. Statistical reporting quality in physical medicine and rehabilitation journals: A comparative analysis of SCI-E and TR indexed publications. Eurasian J Med. 2026, 34, 1511, doi: 10.5152/ eurasianjmed.2026.261 511.
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.