Statistical awareness of research workers in British anaesthesia.

A survey was made of simple statistical errors in the precirculated booklets of abstracts to the Anaesthetic Research Society. In the five booklets June 1988-November 1989, only four of 19 figures included clearly labelled error bars when necessary; in four figures there was no indication of variabi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia Vol. 68; no. 3; pp. 321 - 325
Autores principales: Goodman, N W, Hughes, A O
Formato: research Journal Article
Publicado: Elsevier B.V. Mar1992
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104740166&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 104740166
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00070912
        1FZ
      jtl: BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia
      issn: 00070912
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar1992
      vid: 68
      iid: 3
      pid: 467
      pub: Elsevier B.V.
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        104740166
        104740166
        NLM1547061
        2011098125
        NLM1547061
        104740166
      ppf: 321
      ppct: 4
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Statistical awareness of research workers in British anaesthesia.
      aug:
        au:
          Goodman, N W
          Hughes, A O
        affil: University Department of Anaesthetics, Medical School Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol.
      sug:
        subj:
          Anesthesia Statistics and Numerical Data
          Cognition
          Great Britain
          Human
          Publishing
          Research
      ab: A survey was made of simple statistical errors in the precirculated booklets of abstracts to the Anaesthetic Research Society. In the five booklets June 1988-November 1989, only four of 19 figures included clearly labelled error bars when necessary; in four figures there was no indication of variability. In a more detailed survey of the 115 abstracts presented in 1990, errors were placed in categories: the presentation of method or choice of statistical test; variability; probability. There was a total of 115 errors in 61 abstracts, which was 65% of the 94 abstracts presenting numerical information. The most common errors were: failure to identify tests of inferential statistics (n = 29 abstracts); failure to present data to allow interpretation of P values (n = 21); misuse of SEM (n = 13). Confidence limits were given in seven abstracts. Type II (beta) error was not searched for formally, but no abstract that reported a negative result included the power of the study. With this level of elementary errors, there is considerable room for improvement in the use of straightforward guidelines to the presentation of statistical information. The problem is not confined to British anaesthesia: in more than 30% (25 of 71) of the figures contained in abstracts of the International Anesthesia Research Society in 1990, plots of variables against time showed only mean values.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N