Rigby Alan S, Armstrong Gillian K, Campbell Michael J, Summerton Nick
Academic Cardiology, University of Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Dec 13;4(1):28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-28.
Many medical specialities have reviewed the statistical content of their journals. To our knowledge this has not been done in general practice. Given the main role of a general practitioner as a diagnostician we thought it would be of interest to see whether the statistical methods reported reflect the diagnostic process.
Hand search of three UK journals of general practice namely the British Medical Journal (general practice section), British Journal of General Practice and Family Practice over a one-year period (1 January to 31 December 2000).
A wide variety of statistical techniques were used. The most common methods included t-tests and Chi-squared tests. There were few articles reporting likelihood ratios and other useful diagnostic methods. There was evidence that the journals with the more thorough statistical review process reported a more complex and wider variety of statistical techniques.
The BMJ had a wider range and greater diversity of statistical methods than the other two journals. However, in all three journals there was a dearth of papers reflecting the diagnostic process. Across all three journals there were relatively few papers describing randomised controlled trials thus recognising the difficulty of implementing this design in general practice.
许多医学专业领域都对其期刊的统计学内容进行了审查。据我们所知，全科医学领域尚未进行过此类审查。鉴于全科医生作为诊断医生的主要角色，我们认为了解所报道的统计方法是否反映诊断过程会很有意思。
手工检索英国的三本全科医学期刊，即《英国医学杂志》（全科医学版）、《英国全科医学杂志》和《家庭医疗》，检索时间为一年（2000年1月1日至12月31日）。
使用了各种各样的统计技术。最常用的方法包括t检验和卡方检验。报道似然比及其他有用诊断方法的文章很少。有证据表明，统计审查过程更全面的期刊报道的统计技术更复杂、种类更多。
与其他两本期刊相比，《英国医学杂志》使用的统计方法范围更广、种类更多样。然而，在这三本期刊中，反映诊断过程的论文都很匮乏。在所有三本期刊中，描述随机对照试验的论文相对较少，这也认识到在全科医疗中实施这种设计的困难。
