Literature DB >> 29268425

The biostatistical minimum.

Luca Bertolaccini1, Alessandro Pardolesi1, Piergiorgio Solli1.   

Abstract

Every day in our clinical practice, probability and statistics are used for a broad variety of actions, including the explanation of levels of risk to patients, the access to clinical guidelines, the understanding of research publications, and the writing of investigation papers for analysing numerical data and treatments options. Therefore, an unintentional statistical misconduct may originate from many sources. It is often difficult to detect, and little is known regarding the prevalence or underlying causes of research misconduct among biomedical researchers. The improvements in teaching statistics to thoracic surgeons should improve the thoughtful of statistical concepts and should reduce the incidence of fallacies. The Biostatistical basis should comprise the aspect of the Biostatistics that surgeons should be aware of correctly interpreting in their research findings: the understanding of p-values, confidence intervals, Student's t-tests, Z test, chi-square goodness of fit, ANOVA tables, and basic statistical models (linear or logistic regression). The understanding of Biostatistics is essential to all thoracic surgeons, and it is not unaware since most received some statistics lessons in their training. The Statistic Corner of the Journal of Thoracic Diseases kept the emphasis on Biostatistical methods to applies and when. Thus, various authors wrote about the analyses of several types of outcomes variables, the analyses of study design, the measures of association and impact, and the general strategies for the statistical analyses. Deceptively, these Statistic Corner articles have only scratched the surface. Nonetheless, we hope that had provided a stimulus to enhance the skills to interpret Biostatistics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lung cancer; biostatistics; methodology; statistics

Year:  2017        PMID: 29268425      PMCID: PMC5723836          DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.09.94

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  4 in total

1.  The chicken-and-egg debate about statistics and research.

Authors:  Luca Bertolaccini; Andrea Viti; Alberto Terzi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Statistics teaching in medical school: opinions of practising doctors.

Authors:  Susan Miles; Gill M Price; Louise Swift; Lee Shepstone; Sam J Leinster
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 2.463

3.  Biostatistical and medical statistics graduate education.

Authors:  Michael B Brimacombe
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  Attitudes towards statistics of graduate entry medical students: the role of prior learning experiences.

Authors:  Ailish Hannigan; Avril C Hegarty; Deirdre McGrath
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 2.463

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.