Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/37947
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLisboa, Renato [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorMeira-Freitas, Daniel [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorTatham, Andrew J.
dc.contributor.authorMarvasti, Amir H.
dc.contributor.authorSharpsten, Lucie
dc.contributor.authorMedeiros, Felipe A.
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-24T14:37:32Z-
dc.date.available2016-01-24T14:37:32Z-
dc.date.issued2014-07-01
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.015
dc.identifier.citationOphthalmology. New York: Elsevier B.V., v. 121, n. 7, p. 1317-1321, 2014.
dc.identifier.issn0161-6420
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/37947-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
dc.description.sponsorshipBrazilian National Research Council
dc.description.sponsorshipCarl-Zeiss Meditec, Inc (Jena, Germany)
dc.description.sponsorshipHeidelberg Engineering, GmBH (Dosseinheim, Germany)
dc.description.sponsorshipAlcon (Hunenberg, Switzerland)
dc.description.sponsorshipAllergan (Irvine, California)
dc.description.sponsorshipTopcon (Itabashi, Tokyo, Japan)
dc.description.sponsorshipReichert, Inc (Depew, New York)
dc.format.extent1317-1321
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofOphthalmology
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.titleUse of Statistical Analyses in the Ophthalmic Literatureen
dc.typeArtigo
dc.rights.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Calif San Diego
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.institutionBoston Univ
dc.description.affiliationUniv Calif San Diego, Hamilton Glaucoma Ctr, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
dc.description.affiliationUniv Calif San Diego, Dept Ophthalmol, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Ophthalmol, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationBoston Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA 02118 USA
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Ophthalmol, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sponsorshipIDNational Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: EY021818
dc.description.sponsorshipIDNational Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: P30EY022589
dc.description.sponsorshipIDBrazilian National Research Council: 200178/2012-1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.015
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000341142800010
Appears in Collections:Em verificação - Geral

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.