Statistical Issues in the Articles Published in the Journal of Veterinary Clinics

한국임상수의학회지에 발표된 논문의 통계분석 검토

  • Pak, Son-Il (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Oh, Tae-Ho (College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University)
  • 박선일 (강원대학교 수의과대학 및 동물의학종합연구소) ;
  • 오태호 (경북대학교 수의과대학)
  • Accepted : 2010.04.04
  • Published : 2010.04.30

Abstract

With the ease availability of statistical software and powerful computers the application of statistical methods in domestic veterinary journals is on the increase. In parallel with this benefit, statistical errors are not uncommon even in renowned scientific and medical journals. These errors may lead to misinterpretation of the data, thereby, subjected to faulty conclusions. A systematic review of articles published in 8 issues of the Journal of Veterinary Clinics during 2006-2007 was performed to assess the statistical methodology and reporting. Ninety-four (72.9%) articles of the 129 original articles screened included any inferential statistical analysis in the article, including comparison of 3 or more groups (53 or 56.4%), comparison of independent 2 groups (40 or 42.6%), and paired t-test (9 or 9.6%) in order. Of the 94 articles in which statistical analysis was done 62 (or 66.0%) had at least 1 statistical error. Errors included failure to apply or incorrectly applying independent Student's t-test for paired data or vice versa, inappropriate use of t-test for more than 3 groups and failure in chi-square test to consider continuity-correction for small expected frequencies. The common errors in ANOVA were failure to validate assumption of the test, inappropriate post-hoc multiple-comparison and incorrect assumption of independence of data in repeated measures design. Reporting errors included failure to state statistical methods and failure to state specific test if more than 1 test was done. It is suggested that an editorial effort would be necessary to achieve the improvement of appropriate statistical procedures through the publication of statistical guidelines to author(s).

본 연구는 2006-2007년 한국임상수의학회지에 발표된 논문을 대상으로 자료 분석과 보고방법의 오류를 중심으로 검토하였다. 총 129편 중 94편이 적어도 한가지 이상의 통계분석을 수행하였으며, 분석기법으로는 세 집단 이상 비교 (53편, 56.4%), 두 독립표본 검정 (40편, 42.6%), 짝지은 표본 검정 (9편, 9.6%) 순으로 나타났다. 94편 중 62편 (66%)의 논문에서 적어도 한가지 이상의 통계적 오류가 발견되었다. 주요 오류로는 짝지은 표본에 대한 독립표본 검정, 세 집단 이상에 대한 t 검정의 반복, 카이제곱 검정에서 연속성 보정 무시, 분산분석에서 정규성 검토와 다중비교 방법 선택의 오류, 반복측정 자료에 대한 의존성 가정 무시, 통계분석 방법에 대한 부적절한 설명, 적용한 분석기법에 대한 구체적인 설명 부재 등으로 나타났다. 이러한 문제점을 개선하기 위해서는 학회차원에서 통계처리와 기술방법에 대한 가이드라인을 시급히 마련할 필요가 있을 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Altman DG. Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2661-2674. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981215)17:23<2661::AID-SIM33>3.0.CO;2-B
  2. Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 1983; 286: 1489-1493. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489
  3. Bailar JC 3rd, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 266-273. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-266
  4. Davidoff F, Godlee F, Hoey J, Glass R, Overbeke J, Utiger R, Nicholls MG, Horton R, Nylenna M, Hojgaard L, Kotzin S. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2003; 103: 137-149.
  5. Garcia-Berthou E, Alcaraz C. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-13
  6. Gardner M, Machin D, Campbell M. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. BMJ 1986; 292: 810-812. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.292.6523.810
  7. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 1990; 263: 1355-1357. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.263.10.1355
  8. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Statistics for the nonstatistician. I: Different types of data need different statistical tests. BMJ 1997; 315: 364-366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7104.364
  9. McCance I. Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal. Aust Vet J 1995; 72: 322-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1995.tb07534.x
  10. Olsen CH. Review of the use of statistics in Infection and Immunity. Infect Immun 2003; 71: 6689-6692. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.71.12.6689-6692.2003
  11. Pak SI. An assessment of statistical errors in articles in the Korean Journal of Veterinary Research. Korean J Vet Res 1999; 39: 1187-1196.
  12. Porter AM. Misuse of correlation and regression in three medical journals. J Roy Soc Med 1999; 92: 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107689909200306
  13. Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Peterson BL, Preminger GM, Dahm P. Clinical research and statistical methods in the urology literature. J Urol 2005; 174: 1374-1379. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000173640.91654.b5
  14. Welch GE, Gabbe SG. Review of statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1138-1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70018-2