Use of Statistical Analyses in the Ophthalmic Literature

Use of Statistical Analyses in the Ophthalmic Literature

Author Lisboa, Renato Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Meira-Freitas, Daniel Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Tatham, Andrew J. Google Scholar
Marvasti, Amir H. Google Scholar
Sharpsten, Lucie Google Scholar
Medeiros, Felipe A. Google Scholar
Institution Univ Calif San Diego
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
Boston Univ
Abstract Purpose: To identify the most commonly used statistical analyses in the ophthalmic literature and to determine the likely gain in comprehension of the literature that readers could expect if they were to add knowledge of more advanced techniques sequentially to their statistical repertoire.Design: Cross-sectional study.Methods: All articles published from January 2012 through December 2012 in Ophthalmology, the American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Archives of Ophthalmology were reviewed. A total of 780 peer-reviewed articles were included. Two reviewers examined each article and assigned categories to each one depending on the type of statistical analyses used. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus.Main Outcome Measures: Total number and percentage of articles containing each category of statistical analysis were obtained. Additionally, we estimated the accumulated number and percentage of articles that a reader would be expected to be able to interpret depending on their statistical repertoire.Results: Readers with little or no statistical knowledge would be expected to be able to interpret the statistical methods presented in only 20.8% of articles. To understand more than half (51.4%) of the articles published, readers would be expected to be familiar with at least 15 different statistical methods. Knowledge of 21 categories of statistical methods was necessary to comprehend 70.9% of articles, whereas knowledge of more than 29 categories was necessary to comprehend more than 90% of articles. Articles related to retina and glaucoma subspecialties showed a tendency for using more complex analysis when compared with articles from the cornea subspecialty.Conclusions: Readers of clinical journals in ophthalmology need to have substantial knowledge of statistical methodology to understand the results of studies published in the literature. the frequency of the use of complex statistical analyses also indicates that those involved in the editorial peer-review process must have sound statistical knowledge to appraise critically the articles submitted for publication. the results of this study could provide guidance to direct the statistical learning of clinical ophthalmologists, researchers, and educators involved in the design of courses for residents and medical students. (C) 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Language English
Sponsor National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Brazilian National Research Council
Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Inc (Jena, Germany)
Heidelberg Engineering, GmBH (Dosseinheim, Germany)
Alcon (Hunenberg, Switzerland)
Allergan (Irvine, California)
Topcon (Itabashi, Tokyo, Japan)
Reichert, Inc (Depew, New York)
Grant number National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: EY021818
National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: P30EY022589
Brazilian National Research Council: 200178/2012-1
Date 2014-07-01
Published in Ophthalmology. New York: Elsevier B.V., v. 121, n. 7, p. 1317-1321, 2014.
ISSN 0161-6420 (Sherpa/Romeo, impact factor)
Publisher Elsevier B.V.
Extent 1317-1321
Access rights Closed access
Type Article
Web of Science ID WOS:000341142800010

Show full item record


File Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)




My Account