↓ Skip to main content

Statistical inference in abstracts of major medical and epidemiology journals 1975–2014: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
88 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Statistical inference in abstracts of major medical and epidemiology journals 1975–2014: a systematic review
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10654-016-0211-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Stang, Markus Deckert, Charles Poole, Kenneth J. Rothman

Abstract

Since its introduction in the twentieth century, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), a hybrid of significance testing (ST) advocated by Fisher and null hypothesis testing (NHT) developed by Neyman and Pearson, has become widely adopted but has also been a source of debate. The principal alternative to such testing is estimation with point estimates and confidence intervals (CI). Our aim was to estimate time trends in NHST, ST, NHT and CI reporting in abstracts of major medical and epidemiological journals. We reviewed 89,533 abstracts in five major medical journals and seven major epidemiological journals, 1975-2014, and estimated time trends in the proportions of abstracts containing statistical inference. In those abstracts, we estimated time trends in the proportions relying on NHST and its major variants, ST and NHT, and in the proportions reporting CIs without explicit use of NHST (CI-only approach). The CI-only approach rose monotonically during the study period in the abstracts of all journals. In Epidemiology abstracts, as a result of the journal's editorial policy, the CI-only approach has always been the most common approach. In the other 11 journals, the NHST approach started out more common, but by 2014, this disparity had narrowed, disappeared or reversed in 9 of them. The exceptions were JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet abstracts, where the predominance of the NHST approach prevailed over time. In 2014, the CI-only approach is as popular as the NHST approach in the abstracts of 4 of the epidemiology journals: the American Journal of Epidemiology (48%), the Annals of Epidemiology (55%), Epidemiology (79%) and the International Journal of Epidemiology (52%). The reporting of CIs without explicitly interpreting them as statistical tests is becoming more common in abstracts, particularly in epidemiology journals. Although NHST is becoming less popular in abstracts of most epidemiology journals studied and some widely read medical journals, it is still very common in the abstracts of other widely read medical journals, especially in the hybrid form of ST and NHT in which p values are reported numerically along with declarations of the presence or absence of statistical significance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Peru 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 46 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Computer Science 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2017.
All research outputs
#803,392
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#115
of 1,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,402
of 419,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.