Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States.
QUEST, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin Institutes of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Elife. 2018 Dec 21;7:e36163. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36163.
Transparent reporting is essential for the critical evaluation of studies. However, the reporting of statistical methods for studies in the biomedical sciences is often limited. This systematic review examines the quality of reporting for two statistical tests, t-tests and ANOVA, for papers published in a selection of physiology journals in June 2017. Of the 328 original research articles examined, 277 (84.5%) included an ANOVA or t-test or both. However, papers in our sample were routinely missing essential information about both types of tests: 213 papers (95% of the papers that used ANOVA) did not contain the information needed to determine what type of ANOVA was performed, and 26.7% of papers did not specify what post-hoc test was performed. Most papers also omitted the information needed to verify ANOVA results. Essential information about t-tests was also missing in many papers. We conclude by discussing measures that could be taken to improve the quality of reporting.
透明的报告对于研究的关键评估至关重要。然而，生物医学科学研究中统计方法的报告往往是有限的。本系统评价检查了 2017 年 6 月在一些生理学杂志上发表的论文中两种统计检验（t 检验和 ANOVA）的报告质量。在所检查的 328 篇原始研究文章中，277 篇（84.5%）包括 ANOVA 或 t 检验或两者都有。然而，我们的样本中的论文通常缺少这两种检验的重要信息：213 篇论文（使用 ANOVA 的论文的 95%）没有包含确定执行了哪种 ANOVA 所需的信息，并且 26.7%的论文没有指定执行了哪种事后检验。大多数论文还省略了验证 ANOVA 结果所需的信息。许多论文也缺少关于 t 检验的重要信息。我们最后讨论了可以采取哪些措施来提高报告质量。
Zotero 插件
