Katz Kenneth A, Crawford Glen H, Lu Dave W, Kantor Jonathan, Margolis David J
Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Aug;51(2):234-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.02.015.
Problems with statistical methods and reporting have been noted in articles published in dermatology journals. Conclusions presented in published reports may be misleading if based on inappropriate or misinterpreted statistical analysis.
We sought to assess dermatology journal editors' policies and perceptions regarding statistical review of submitted manuscripts.
We mailed and e-mailed a questionnaire survey.
A total of 43 dermatology journal editors, representing 35 dermatology journals from the United States and abroad, participated in this study.
In all, 32 editors (74.4%), representing 30 journals (85.7%), returned questionnaires. A total of 24 editors (75%) reported having requested statistical reviews on less than 5% of published manuscripts containing original quantitative analysis (ie, excluding reviews and case reports), whereas 3 editors (9.4%) reported having requested statistical reviews on more than 75% of such manuscripts. Most editors reported requesting statistical reviews on a case-by-case basis either after initial favorable review by subject-matter (nonstatistical) reviewers (12 editors; 37.5%) or at the same time that subject-matter review was requested (6 editors; 18.8%). A total of 4 editors (12.5%) reported requesting statistical review for all manuscripts at the same time they are sent for subject-matter review. Another 10 editors (31.3%) said their journals had no general policy on statistical reviewing, and statistical review is almost never needed. For 15 editors (46.9%), ideal statistical reviewing policy was identical to their current policy, whereas 13 (40.6%) favored a more rigorous and 3 (9.4%) a less rigorous policy.
Dermatology journals infrequently perform statistical reviews of submitted manuscripts. Dermatology journal editors' statistical review policies range from no general policy to (most frequently) requesting reviews on a case-by-case basis to reviewing all submitted manuscripts. Many editors favor more rigorous statistical reviewing policies for their journals. Increased use of statistical reviewing may increase the reliability of conclusions published in dermatology journals.
皮肤病学杂志发表的文章中已发现统计方法和报告方面的问题。如果已发表报告中的结论基于不恰当或错误解读的统计分析，可能会产生误导。
我们试图评估皮肤病学杂志编辑对于提交稿件进行统计审核的政策和看法。
我们通过邮寄和电子邮件方式进行问卷调查。
共有43位皮肤病学杂志编辑参与了本研究，他们代表了来自美国和其他国家的35种皮肤病学杂志。
总共32位编辑（74.4%），代表30种杂志（85.7%）返回了问卷。共有24位编辑（75%）报告称，他们对包含原始定量分析的已发表稿件（即不包括综述和病例报告）中不到5%的稿件要求进行统计审核，而3位编辑（9.4%）报告称对超过75%的此类稿件要求进行统计审核。大多数编辑报告称，要么在主题（非统计）审稿人初步给予肯定评价之后（12位编辑；37.5%），要么在要求进行主题审稿的同时（6位编辑；18.8%），逐案要求进行统计审核。共有4位编辑（12.5%）报告称在将所有稿件送去进行主题审稿时同时要求进行统计审核。另外10位编辑（31.3%）表示他们的杂志没有关于统计审核的一般政策，而且几乎从不进行统计审核。对于15位编辑（46.9%）而言，理想的统计审核政策与他们当前的政策相同，而13位编辑（40.6%）倾向于更严格的政策，3位编辑（9.4%）倾向于不那么严格的政策。
皮肤病学杂志很少对提交的稿件进行统计审核。皮肤病学杂志编辑的统计审核政策各不相同，从没有一般政策到（最常见的情况）逐案要求审核，再到审核所有提交的稿件。许多编辑赞成对他们的杂志采用更严格的统计审核政策。增加统计审核的使用可能会提高皮肤病学杂志发表结论的可靠性。
