Importance of using basic statistics adequately in clinical research

Sousa‐Rodrigues, Célio Fernando de; Lima, Fernando José Camello de; Barbosa, Fabiano Timbó

doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2017.01.011

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A two-tailed Fisher's exact test was used to compare the frequency of categorical variables between two groups. To compare for non-parametric samples [21][22][23] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of preconditioning and postoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy on colonic anastomosis healing with and without ischemia in rats

Fontoura-Andrade

Pinto²,

Carneiro

et al. 2020

Acta Cir. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A two-tailed Fisher's exact test was used to compare the frequency of categorical variables between two groups. To compare for non-parametric samples [21][22][23] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of preconditioning and postoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy on colonic anastomosis healing with and without ischemia in rats

Fontoura-Andrade

Pinto²,

Carneiro

et al. 2020

Acta Cir. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although clinicians obtained basic biostatistics knowledge during professional training, they are not apt to confidently use their knowledge to interpret the results of different statistical methods used in the medical literature for applied decision making [33]. The ability to identify the test used for each particular situation is influenced by the data measurement scale, number of groups, relationship between participants (independent groups or related), and the researcher’s intention to establish associations or causal relationships between groups [33]. As noted in the regression model, although the interpretation of results of a statistical method used was included in the model, it was relatively marginal and nonsignificant ( p = 0.059).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinicians’ Perceived Understanding of Biostatistical Results in the Medical Literature: A Cross-Sectional Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: The continuum of evidence-based medicine (EBM) depends solely on clinicians’ commitment to keep current with the latest clinical information. Exploration on clinicians’ understanding of biostatistical results in the medical literature is sparse to date. This study aimed to evaluate clinicians’ perceived understanding of biostatistical results in the medical literature and the factors influencing them. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 201 clinicians at the Seberang Jaya Hospital, a cluster-lead research hospital in Northern Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire that consisted of items on sociodemographics, validated items on clinicians’ confidence level in interpreting statistical concepts, perceived understanding of biostatistics, and familiarity with different statistical methods were used. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: Perceived understanding of biostatistical results among clinicians in our sample was nearly 75%. In the final regression model, perceived understanding was significantly higher among clinicians who were able to interpret p-values with complete confidence (AOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.1–8.1), clinicians who regularly encounter measures of central tendencies (AOR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.1–5.2), and clinicians who regularly encounter inferential statistics (AOR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.1–4.5) while appraising the medical literature. Conclusions: High perceived understanding was significantly associated with clinicians’ confidence in interpreting statistical concepts and familiarity with different statistical methods. Our findings form a platform to understand clinicians’ ability to appraise rigorous biostatistical results in the medical literature for the retrieval of evidence-based data to be used in routine clinical practice.

show abstract

“…A importância do uso da estatística em estudos de avaliação se dá, pois, essa é uma ciência que busca, através da análise dos dados, testar as hipóteses estatísticas, verificar a força da evidência, averiguar se há conexão entre grupos ou ainda a veracidade de fenômenos de interesse 35 . Nesse sentido, a análise estatística, quando devidamente executada e relatada nas publicações, permite que as informações derivadas dos dados coletados sejam interpretadas, possibilitando, assim, que decisões sejam tomadas e ações sejam realizadas em prol da sociedade.…”

Section: Medidas E Testes Estatísticosunclassified

Metodologias De Estudos De Avaliação De Programas Governamentais De Saúde E Assistência Farmacêutica: Revisão Integrativa / Methodologies for Evaluation Studies of Government Health and Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs: Integrative Review

Carmo

Jorge

Aragão

et al. 2020

BJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance of using basic statistics adequately in clinical research

Cited by 29 publications

References 18 publications

Effect of preconditioning and postoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy on colonic anastomosis healing with and without ischemia in rats

Effect of preconditioning and postoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy on colonic anastomosis healing with and without ischemia in rats

Clinicians’ Perceived Understanding of Biostatistical Results in the Medical Literature: A Cross-Sectional Study

Metodologias De Estudos De Avaliação De Programas Governamentais De Saúde E Assistência Farmacêutica: Revisão Integrativa / Methodologies for Evaluation Studies of Government Health and Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs: Integrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About