Statistical Use in Clinical Studies: Is There Evidence of a Methodological Shift?

Yi, Dali; Ma, Dihui; Li, Gaoming; Zhou, Liang; Qin, Xiao; Zhang, Yanqi; Liu, Xiaoyu; Chen, Hongru; Pettigrew, Julia Christine; Yi, Dong; Liu, Ling; Wu, Yazhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140159

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We observed that traditional observational study designs (cross‐sectional surveys and case–control studies) occurred with less frequency in 2018 compared with 1996, with a corresponding increase in the proportion of longitudinal cohort studies and meta‐analyses. Our finding is in line with previous findings from highly visible general medical journals (Arnold et al, ; Yi et al, ). This suggests that study designs with stronger evidence are required in and applied to psychiatric papers published in 2018.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Our finding is in line with previous findings from highly visible general medical journals (Arnold et al, 2013;Yi et al, 2015). This suggests that study designs with stronger evidence are required in and applied to psychiatric papers published in 2018.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The increased statistical intensity in psychiatric papers requires strong data analysis understanding to interpret the applications and the results. The phenomenon that statistical intensity has increased indicates that journals are more strict regarding the accuracy and type of data analysis that are reported in articles (Arnold et al, ; Hellems, Gurka, & Hayden, ; Welch & Gabbe, ; Yi et al, ) Authors, reviewers, and journal editors have a greater responsibility for ensuring that statistical procedures are used appropriately, as it may be increasingly unrealistic to expect readers to fully understand the statistical analyses used in journal articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reporting of data analysis methods in psychiatric journals: Trends from 1996 to 2018

Nieminen

Kaur

2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The article aims to evaluate how study designs and data analysis methods in psychiatric studies have changed over the last 22 years. Methods This study involved a total of 320 papers published in 1996 and 2018 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, British Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry. We manually reviewed the articles to determine the way in which they reported the study characteristics and the methods applied in data analysis. Results The statistical intensity in psychiatric journals has changed over the past 20 years. Traditional methods of testing statistical significance were widely used both in 1996 and in 2018. In 2018, there was an increase in reporting more complex methods, such as multivariable regression models, multilevel modelling, and intracluster correlation methods. However, computationally complex data mining or machine learning procedures were not adopted by psychiatric researchers. Conclusion The increase in statistical intensity in the literature suggests that readers of prominent psychiatric journals must possess a substantial level of statistical expertise if they wish to critically evaluate the findings published in these journals. It is essential to include an awareness of this substantial change in data analysis methods in psychiatric undergraduate and postgraduate education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting of data analysis methods in psychiatric journals: Trends from 1996 to 2018

Nieminen

Kaur

2019

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have shown substantial increases over time in the number of authors per article in the peer-reviewed medical literature 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Contributing factors include the increasing complexity and interdisciplinary nature of research (leading to involvement and crediting of experts from multiple fields),3, 9, 10, 11, 12 the shift toward large multicenter studies (with leaders from each site included in the author list),7, 13, 14 increasing international publication (with academic traditions around the inclusion of students, mentors, or department chairs differing between countries 15 ),2, 7, 15 and “author inflation” (also known as gift or guest authorship) 3, 16. A question that has received much less attention is how the composition of author lists has changed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Graca

Pollock

Phan

et al. 2019

Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Studies with authors trained in research methods are of higher quality than those without. We examined inclusion of authors with master's or doctoral degrees incorporating advanced research methods training on original research articles in high-impact journals, investigating differences between journals and by first-author sex. Methods Using all original research articles from 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ), Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ), Annals of Internal Medicine ( Annals ), and JAMA-Internal Medicine/Archives of Internal Medicine ( Archives ) every alternate month, February 1994 to October 2016, we assessed the prevalence of articles listing authors with master's/doctoral research degrees and its adjusted associations with time of publication, journal, and first-author sex via multivariable logistic regression models (accounting for number of authors, study type, specialty/topic, and continent and for interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent). Results Of 3009 articles examined, 84.4% (n=2539) had authors listing research degrees. After adjustment, the prevalence of such articles increased from 1994 to 2016 ( P <.001), but patterns differed among journals. Annals and NEJM increased to approximately100% by 2016; JAMA and Archives peaked around 2010 to 2011, then declined. Articles with female first authors were more likely to list authors with research degrees (adjusted odds ratio=1.66; 95% CI, 1.29-2.13; P <.001). Conclusion The prevalence of original research articles listing authors trained in research methods in high-impact journals increased significantly but is now declining at some journals, with potential effects on quality. The greater prevalence among female first-authored articles suggests possible sex differences in structuring/crediting research teams or subconscious sex bias during review.

show abstract

“…Although there are general concepts that underlie all statistics, different disciplines may emphasize particular techniques, and the use of statistical methods changes over time. 10 Knowledge of how frequently statistical tests are used in published studies from a particular medical discipline could be useful in designing curricula and assessment tools specifically tailored for EBM in pathology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Literacy Among Academic Pathologists: A Survey Study to Gauge Knowledge of Frequently Used Statistical Tests Among Trainees and Faculty

Schmidt

Chute

Colbert-Getz

et al. 2016

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.—Statistical literacy can be defined as understanding the statistical tests and terminology needed for the design, analysis, and conclusions of original research or laboratory testing. Little is known about the statistical literacy of clinical or anatomic pathologists. Objective.—To determine the statistical methods most commonly used in pathology studies from the literature and to assess familiarity and knowledge level of these statistical tests by pathology residents and practicing pathologists. Design.—The most frequently used statistical methods were determined by a review of 1100 research articles published in 11 pathology journals during 2015. Familiarity with statistical methods was determined by a survey of pathology trainees and practicing pathologists at 9 academic institutions in which pathologists were asked to rate their knowledge of the methods identified by the focused review of the literature. Results.—We identified 18 statistical tests that appear frequently in published pathology studies. On average, pathologists reported a knowledge level between “no knowledge” and “basic knowledge” of most statistical tests. Knowledge of tests was higher for more frequently used tests. Greater statistical knowledge was associated with a focus on clinical pathology versus anatomic pathology, having had a statistics course, having an advanced degree other than an MD degree, and publishing research. Statistical knowledge was not associated with length of pathology practice. Conclusions.—An audit of pathology literature reveals that knowledge of about 12 statistical tests would be sufficient to provide statistical literacy for pathologists. On average, most pathologists report they can interpret commonly used tests but are unable to perform them. Most pathologists indicated that they would benefit from additional statistical training.

show abstract

Statistical Use in Clinical Studies: Is There Evidence of a Methodological Shift?

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Reporting of data analysis methods in psychiatric journals: Trends from 1996 to 2018

Reporting of data analysis methods in psychiatric journals: Trends from 1996 to 2018

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Statistical Literacy Among Academic Pathologists: A Survey Study to Gauge Knowledge of Frequently Used Statistical Tests Among Trainees and Faculty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About