Narrative Review of Statistical Reporting Checklists, Mandatory Statistical Editing, and Rectifying Common Problems in the Reporting of Scientific Articles.
Considerable attention has been drawn to poor reproducibility in the biomedical literature. One explanation is inadequate reporting of statistical methods by authors and inadequate assessment of statistical reporting and methods during peer review. In this narrative review, we examine scientific studies of several well-publicized efforts to improve statistical reporting. We also review several retrospective assessments of the impact of these efforts. These studies show that instructions to authors and statistical checklists are not sufficient; no findings suggested that either improves the quality of statistical methods and reporting. Second, even basic statistics, such as power analyses, are frequently missing or incorrectly performed. Third, statistical review is needed for all papers that involve data analysis. A consistent finding in the studies was that nonstatistical reviewers (eg, "scientific reviewers") and journal editors generally poorly assess statistical quality. We finish by discussing our experience with statistical review at Anesthesia & Analgesia from 2006 to 2016.
From the *Division of Management Consulting, Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; and †Department of Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Franklin
F
Dexter
Steven L
SL
Shafer
D057189:Checklist / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D035081:Editorial Policies; D006801:Humans; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards; D015203:Reproducibility of Results