Literature DB >> 1351973

The Lancet's statistical review process: areas for improvement by authors.

S M Gore1, G Jones, S G Thompson.   

Abstract

The Lancet now incorporates statistical review of submitted papers which remain candidates for publication after conventional review. We summarise here criticisms noted by the statistical reviewers for 191 such papers received between November, 1990, and June, 1991. Only 54% of papers were deemed acceptable or acceptable after revision; the others were either recommended for rejection (14%) or for more substantial revision and re-review (32%). Descriptions of methods and of results were found inadequate in about half of the papers; about one-quarter of papers had inadequate abstracts and conclusions. Major errors of inference were made in 48 papers and went hand in hand with major criticisms of analysis or design in those papers. The natural focus of statistical review is whether conclusions drawn are justified by study design and statistical analysis. In this, there is room for improvement by authors.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1351973     DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90409-v

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  12 in total

1.  The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers.

Authors:  M Docherty; R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-08

Review 2.  Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies.

Authors:  J A Barber; S G Thompson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

3.  Clinical trials in urogynecology.

Authors:  D Moher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  1997

4.  Commentary: scientific heads are not turned by rhetoric.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

5.  Data explorer: a prototype expert system for statistical analysis.

Authors:  C Aliferis; E Chao; G F Cooper
Journal:  Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care       Date:  1993

6.  The organization of statistical activities at medical research institutions.

Authors:  K Akazawa; M Sakamoto; Y Nishioka; N Kinukawa; Y Nose
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.460

7.  Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact medical journals.

Authors:  Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Jenny K Hyun; Rachelle N Reeder; Alex Hs Harris
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2011-08-19

Review 8.  Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research.

Authors:  A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jimenez-Fonseca; A Fernández-Somoano; F Álvarez-Manceñido; E Castañón; A Custodio; F A de la Peña; R M Payo; L P Valiente
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

9.  Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: caveat lector?

Authors:  S N Goodman; D G Altman; S L George
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  What to use to express the variability of data: Standard deviation or standard error of mean?

Authors:  Mohini P Barde; Prajakt J Barde
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2012-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.