Hokanson J A, Luttman D J, Weiss G B
Cancer Treat Rep. 1986 May;70(5):589-94.
We describe the frequency with which various statistical techniques are reported in almost 5,000 articles published in five major American oncology journals during 1983 and 1984. A reader familiar with about a dozen techniques can expect to understand approximately 90% of the quantitative concepts cited in these journals. With the exception of survival analysis, these were typically the techniques encountered in many introductory statistical texts. Oncology training program preceptors concerned about making their graduates more effective consumers of the literature can use these findings in structuring exposure to quantitative skills. In four of the five journals reviewed, failure to identify the statistical methodology was among the ten most commonly encountered "techniques." This made it impossible to identify the analytical procedures used in many articles, and hence to judge their scientific validity. We encourage more editorial boards to adopt guidelines requiring a standardized format for presenting results based on a statistical analysis.
我们描述了1983年和1984年期间在美国五家主要肿瘤学期刊上发表的近5000篇文章中各种统计技术的报道频率。熟悉大约十二种技术的读者有望理解这些期刊中引用的大约90%的定量概念。除生存分析外，这些通常是许多统计学入门教材中会遇到的技术。关注使毕业生更有效地阅读文献的肿瘤学培训项目指导教师可以利用这些发现来安排定量技能的培训。在所审查的五家期刊中的四家，未指明统计方法是十种最常出现的“技术”之一。这使得无法确定许多文章中使用的分析程序，从而无法判断其科学有效性。我们鼓励更多编辑委员会采用要求基于统计分析呈现结果的标准化格式的指南。
