| Title |
How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0510-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Darren C. Greenwood, Jennifer V. Freeman |
| Abstract |
Statistical analyses presented in general medical journals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BMC Medicine relies on subject reviewers to indicate when a statistical review is required. We consider this policy and provide guidance on when to recommend a manuscript for statistical evaluation. Indicators for statistical review include insufficient detail in methods or results, some common statistical issues and interpretation not based on the presented evidence. Reviewers are required to ensure that the manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly written. Within that context, they are expected to provide constructive feedback and opinion on the statistical design, analysis, presentation and interpretation. If reviewers lack the appropriate background to positively confirm the appropriateness of any of the manuscript's statistical aspects, they are encouraged to recommend it for expert statistical review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 306 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 62 | 20% |
| United States | 46 | 15% |
| Australia | 18 | 6% |
| Canada | 13 | 4% |
| Mexico | 6 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 2% |
| India | 5 | 2% |
| Portugal | 4 | 1% |
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 101 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 153 | 50% |
| Scientists | 103 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 35 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 15 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Egypt | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 82 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 188. 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 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#214,975
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#185
of 4,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,911
of 298,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 298,250 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.