Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 30;77(12):1554-1561. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.031.
In 2016, the American Statistical Association stated that the use of statistical significance leads to distortion of the scientific process. The principal alternative to significance or null hypothesis testing (NHT) is estimation with point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs).
The aim of this study was to determine the time trend of statistical inference and statistical reporting style in abstracts in major cardiovascular journals.
A total of 84,250 abstracts published from 1975 to 2019 in 9 high-ranking cardiovascular journals (Circulation, Circulation Research, European Heart Journal, European Heart Journal: Cardiovascular Imaging, European Journal of Heart Failure, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, and JAMA Cardiology) were reviewed; in particular, proportions of abstracts containing statistical inference and its major variants (NHT, significance testing) were compared over time and among journals.
Overall, 49,924 abstracts (59%) contained statistical inference. Among these abstracts, NHT was the most frequent reporting style of statistical inference (79% among all journals). Journals differed considerably in the prevalence of CI reporting (1% to 78% in 2017-2019). With the exception of 2 journals, the proportion of abstracts containing CIs was higher in the more recent period. From 2013-2015 to 2017-2019, the proportion of abstracts containing only CIs increased by 5 (95% CI: 0 to 10), 18 (95% CI: 15 to 21), and 9 (95% CI: 3 to 15) percentage points in the European Heart Journal, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, respectively.
NHT is still the prevailing reporting style of statistical inference in major cardiovascular journals. Reporting of CIs in abstracts of major cardiovascular journals appears to be growing more popular.
2016 年，美国统计协会表示，统计显著性的使用导致了科学过程的扭曲。替代显著性或零假设检验（NHT）的主要方法是使用点估计和置信区间（CI）进行估计。
本研究旨在确定主要心血管期刊摘要中统计推断和统计报告风格的时间趋势。
共回顾了 1975 年至 2019 年在 9 种高排名心血管期刊（《循环》《循环研究》《欧洲心脏杂志》《欧洲心脏杂志：心血管成像》《欧洲心力衰竭杂志》《美国心脏病学会杂志》《美国心脏病学会：心血管成像杂志》《美国心脏病学会：心血管介入杂志》和《美国医学会心脏病学杂志》）上发表的 84250 篇摘要；特别是，比较了不同时期和不同期刊中包含统计推断及其主要变体（NHT、显著性检验）的摘要比例。
总体而言，49924 篇摘要（59%）包含统计推断。在这些摘要中，NHT 是最常见的统计推断报告方式（在所有期刊中占 79%）。期刊在 CI 报告的流行程度上存在显著差异（2017-2019 年在 1%至 78%之间）。除了 2 种期刊外，最近时期包含 CI 的摘要比例更高。从 2013-2015 年到 2017-2019 年，欧洲心脏杂志、美国心脏病学会杂志和美国心脏病学会：心血管成像杂志中仅包含 CI 的摘要比例分别增加了 5 个百分点（95%CI：0 至 10）、18 个百分点（95%CI：15 至 21）和 9 个百分点（95%CI：3 至 15）。
NHT 仍然是主要心血管期刊中统计推断的主要报告方式。主要心血管期刊摘要中 CI 的报告似乎越来越受欢迎。
