PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9644649

Statistical science and quantitative understanding.

D J Finney
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Authors of papers in biological journals need to make their uses of statistical methods and software explicit and maximally comprehensible. Editors and referees have important responsibilities for this. Inexact use of technical terminology causes confusion. Computer software is invaluable but not infallible. Graphical presentation should not conceal numerical results. Tests of statistical significance should be reserved for specific needs, which will rarely include multiple comparison procedures. Experiments that involve repeated measurements need special care in statistical analysis. Full attention should be given to principles of statistical estimation as well as to choice of appropriate statistical technique. At all times, ethical standards of scientific integrity must contribute to precision and clarity. Clinical research that neglects well-established statistical principles may be intrinsically unethical.

Explore related subjects

PublishingSoftwareStatistics as TopicWritingJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D J Finney. 1998. Statistical science and quantitative understanding.. https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.23.2_93

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this article incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Comment. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from 4 stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, according to each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Publishing↗
PubMed2001

Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation.

CONTEXT: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs.

Publishing↗