How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer

BMC Medicine

Jennifer V. Freeman¹  Darren C. Greenwood¹ 

[1] Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

关键词: Statistics;    Reporting guidelines;    Recommendations to reviewers;    Publishing;    Professional competence;    Presentation;    Peer review;    Editorial policy;    Completeness of reporting;   

Others  :  1231065
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0510-5

 received in 2015-07-07, accepted in 2015-09-18,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Statistical analyses presented in general medical journals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BMC Medicine relies on subject reviewers to indicate when a statistical review is required. We consider this policy and provide guidance on when to recommend a manuscript for statistical evaluation. Indicators for statistical review include insufficient detail in methods or results, some common statistical issues and interpretation not based on the presented evidence. Reviewers are required to ensure that the manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly written. Within that context, they are expected to provide constructive feedback and opinion on the statistical design, analysis, presentation and interpretation. If reviewers lack the appropriate background to positively confirm the appropriateness of any of the manuscript’s statistical aspects, they are encouraged to recommend it for expert statistical review.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Greenwood and Freeman.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Altman DG. Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat Med. 1998; 17:2661-74.
• [2]Moher D. Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine 2015. doi:. 10. 1186/s12916-015-0509-y webcite
• [3]Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med. 2015; 13:158. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. J Am Med Assoc. 1990; 263:1355-7.
• [5]Schor S, Karten I. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. J Am Med Assoc. 1966; 195:1123-8.
• [6]Murray GD. The task of a statistical referee. Br J Surg. 1988; 75:664-7.
• [7]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61:344-9.
• [9]Altman DG. Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample? Br Med J. 1980; 281:1336-8.
• [10]Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Med Educ. 1999; 33:66-78.
• [11]Altman DG. Making research articles fit for purpose: structured reporting of key methods and findings. Trials. 2015; 16:53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000; 355:1064-9.
• [13]Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; i:307-10.
• [14]Hollis S, Campbell MJ. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999; 319:670-4.
• [15]White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical Trials. 2012; 9:396-407.
• [16]Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986; 292:746-50.
• [17]Pyke DA. Writing and speaking in medicine. How I referee. Br Med J. 1976; 2:1117-8.