Abstract
Objectives
To assess what statistical methods are commonly used in high-impact clinical research
and how they are presented in abstracts of articles published in high-impact medical
journals.
Study Design and Setting
A cross-sectional survey of abstracts of original articles published in July 2003
in four high-impact medical journals was conducted. The primary outcome was the distribution
of statistical methods used in study results presented in the abstract of articles.
Results
Seventy articles met inclusion criteria. One hundred twenty-five unique statistical
method presentations were analyzed. Sixty-eight percent of statistical methods used
summary statistics, and 27.2% used regression analysis. When summary statistics were
used, clinical evidence was presented with a P-value or confidence interval (CI) in 51.8% of statistical methods compared to 72.5%
when summary statistics were not used (P=0.0282). Clinical evidence was presented verbally in 7.1% of statistical methods when
summary statistics were used and in 20.0% when summary statistics were not used (P=0.0323).
Conclusions
Summary statistics are the most frequently used statistical method to generate high-impact
clinical evidence presented in the abstract of a medical article. Evidence described
by summary statistics is significantly associated with less frequent reporting of
a P-value or CI, and less frequent verbal presentations.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Medicine. Communicating statistical information.Science. 2000; 290: 2261-2262
- Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences.Acad Med. 1998; 73: 538-540
- The next 10 years of biostatistics.Stat Methods Med Res. 2000; 9: 25-30
- Biostatistics in the new millennium: a consulting statistician's perspective.Stat Methods Med Res. 2000; 9: 3-16
- The future of biostatistics: expecting the unexpected.Stat Med. 1997; 16: 2773-2784
- The future of data analysis.Ann Math Stat. 1962; 33: 1-67
- Bayesians, frequentists, and scientists.J Am Stat Assoc. 2005; 100: 1-5
- Use of statistical analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine.N Engl J Med. 1983; 309: 709-713
- Transfer of technology from statistical journals to the biomedical literature. Past trends and future predictions.JAMA. 1994; 272: 129-132
Thomson Scientific. Journal Citation Reports help menu. 2006.
- Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140 ([Editorial]): 480-481
- Screening research papers by reading abstracts.BMJ. 2004; 329: 470-471
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 17, 2007
Accepted:
May 3,
2007
Identification
Copyright
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
