Trends in statistical methods in articles published in Archives of Plastic Surgery between 2012 and 2017

This review article presents an assessment of trends in statistical methods and an evaluation of their appropriateness in articles published in the Archives of Plastic Surgery (APS) from 2012 to 2017. We reviewed 388 original articles published in APS between 2012 and 2017. We categorized the articles that used statistical methods according to the type of statistical method, the number of statistical methods, and the type of statistical software used. We checked whether there were errors in the description of statistical methods and results. A total of 230 articles (59.3%) published in APS between 2012 and 2017 used one or more statistical method. Within these articles, there were 261 applications of statistical methods with continuous or ordinal outcomes, and 139 applications of statistical methods with categorical outcome. The Pearson chi-square test (17.4%) and the Mann-Whitney U test (14.4%) were the most frequently used methods. Errors in describing statistical methods and results were found in 133 of the 230 articles (57.8%). Inadequate description of P-values was the most common error (39.1%). Among the 230 articles that used statistical methods, 71.7% provided details about the statistical software programs used for the analyses. SPSS was predominantly used in the articles that presented statistical analyses. We found that the use of statistical methods in APS has increased over the last 6 years. It seems that researchers have been paying more attention to the proper use of statistics in recent years. It is expected that these positive trends will continue in APS.

Keywords

Statistics - Parametric methods - Nonparametric methods - Statistical software

Publication History

Received: 02 January 2018

Accepted: 02 May 2018

Article published online:
03 April 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Wikipedia. Evidence-based medicine [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia [cited 2017 Dec 4]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
• 2 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 309-15
• 3 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [cited 2017 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparingfor-submission.html
• 4 Januszyk M, Gurtner GC. Statistics in medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 437-44
• 5 Freshwater MF. A plea to improve statistical analyses and methods in plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66: 1447-8
• 6 Kim J, Yoon S, Kang JJ. et al. Research designs and statistical methods trends in the annals of rehabilitation medicine. Ann Rehabil Med 2017; 41: 475-82
• 7 Sato Y, Gosho M, Nagashima K. et al. Statistical methods in the journal: an update. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1086-7
• 8 Arnold LD, Braganza M, Salih R. et al. Statistical trends in the Journal of the American Medical Association and implications for training across the continuum of medical education. PLoS One 2013; 8: e77301
• 9 Qualls M, Pallin DJ, Schuur JD. Parametric versus nonparametric statistical tests: the length of stay example. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17: 1113-21
• 10 Altman DG. Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2661-74
• 11 Jung I. Some facts that you might be unaware of about the p-value. Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44: 93-4
• 12 van Rijn MH, Bech A, Bouyer J. et al. Statistical significance versus clinical relevance. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017; 32 (suppl_2) ii6-ii12
• 13 Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 2016; 70: 129-33
• 14 Kyriacou DN. The enduring evolution of the p value. JAMA 2016; 315: 1113-5
• 15 Lee WJ. Research, plastic surgery, and Archives of Plastic Surgery . Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44: 359-60