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.
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.
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 l...
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).
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).
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
The aim of the present paper was to critically appraise the articles published in a peer-reviewed journal regarding statistical appropriateness. The issues discussed here are intended to aware veterinary researchers about statistical errors or shortcomings in key aspect of a study including data collection, inferential method applied, data analysis, and interpretation of study results, in the hope that improvement of statistical quality of researches and skills in critical appraisal pf published literatures can be expected.
제안 방법
This was not considered an error. In addition, the author focused on statistical methodology such as failure to account for basic assumption, sample size and data type for each procedure, not for the overall quality of the published articles. Further, inappropriate use of descriptive statistics and failure to posthoc multiple-comparison in ANOVA were not included to calculate overall error rate.
To evaluate the statistical procedures for common errors the author focused only on inferential statistics for the type of data measured and transparent reporting of the results of statistical analysis. Since no formalized statistical guidelines are provided by JVC, the author developed evaluation criteria based on the current instructions to authors recommended by the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine (http://jvim.allentrack.net. accessed June 24, 2008) and accepted statistical principles (1,3,4,6).
성능/효과
Counting each article once if multiple errors in a paper were identified, the percentage of errors in papers with Student’s ttest, chi-square test, ANOVA, and regression were 53.1%, 25.0%, 47.6%, and 50.0%, respectively.
The most frequent correlation error was parametric Pearson correlation coefficient and over-fitting for small sample size. Other reporting errors were failure to state statistical methods used, failure to state the direction of hypothesis testing, wrong names for the statistical test, failure to state specific test if more than 1 test was done and misinterpretation of test results.
후속연구
The aim of the present paper was to critically appraise the articles published in a peer-reviewed journal regarding statistical appropriateness. The issues discussed here are intended to aware veterinary researchers about statistical errors or shortcomings in key aspect of a study including data collection, inferential method applied, data analysis, and interpretation of study results, in the hope that improvement of statistical quality of researches and skills in critical appraisal pf published literatures can be expected.
참고문헌 (14)
Altman DG. Statistical reviewing for medical journals. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2661-2674.
Bailar JC 3rd, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 266-273.
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.
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.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.