How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 318-322

  Herbison, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Research methods; Research reporting; Statistical reviewing

Indexed keywords

MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT;

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STATISTICS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 34248199346     PISSN: 07332467     EISSN: 15206777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20346     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Glantz SA. 1980. Biostatistics: How to detect, correct and prevent errors in the medical literature. Circulation 61:1-7.
2. Becker PJ, Viljoen E, Wolmarans L, et al. 1995. An assessment of the statistical procedures used in original papers published in the SAMJ during 1992. S Afr Med J 85:881-4.
3. Rushton L. 2000. Reporting of occupational and environmental research: Use and misuse of statistical and epidemiological methods. Occup Environ Med 57:1-9.
4. Vail A, Gardener E. 2003. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod 18:1000-4.
5. Altman DG. 2002. Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287:2765-7.
6. Goodman SN, Altman DG, George SL. 1998. Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals - Caveat Lector? J Gen Intern Med 13:753-6.
7. Garcia-Berthou E, Alcaraz C. 2004. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:13.
8. Montori VM, Jaeschke R, Schunemann HJ, et al. 2004. Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ 329: 1093-6.
9. Herbison P. 2001. Unsubstantiated claims? NZMJ 114:365-6.
10. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. 2004. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457-65.
11. Greene WL, Concato J. Feinstein AR. 2000. Claims of equivalence in medical research: Are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 132:715-22.
12. Alderson P. 2004. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 328:476-7.
13. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. 2002a. An overview of clinical research: The lay of the land. Lancet 359:57-61.
14. Groutz A, Gold R, Pauzner D, et al. 2004. Tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for the treatment of occult stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing prolapse repair: A prospective study of 100 consecutive cases. Neurourol Urodyn 27:632-5.
15. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. 2002b. Descriptive studies: What they can and cannot do. Lancet 359:145-9.
16. Evans SJW. 1991. Good surveys guide. Go for small random samples with high response rates. BMJ 302:302-3.
17. Madjar S, Evans D, Duncan RC, et al. 2001. Collaboration and practice patterns among urologists and gynecologists in the treatment of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor prolapse: A survey of the International Continence Society members. Neurourol Urodyn 20:3-11.
18. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. 2002. Case-control studies: Research in reverse. Lancet 359:431-4.
19. Parazzini F, Chiaffarino F, Lavezzari M, et al. 2003. Risk factors for stress, urge or mixed urinary incontinence in Italy. BJOG 110:927-33.
20. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. 2002c. Cohort studies: Marching towards outcomes. Lancet 359:341-5.
21. Dallosso HM. McGrother CW. Matthews RJ. et al. 2004. Nutrient composition of the diet and the development of overactive bladder: A longitudinal study in women. Neurourol Urodyn 23:204-10.
22. Altman DG. 1991. Randomisation. Essential for reducing bias. BMJ 302:1481.
23. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. 1995. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408-12.
24. Millard RJ. 2004. Clinical efficacy of tolterodine with or without a simplified pelvic floor exercise regimen. Neurourol Urodyn 23:48-53.
25. Elwood JM. 1998. Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical trials, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. 2001. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663-94.
27. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. 1999. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896-900.
28. Tufte E. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd Edition. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
29. Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, et al. 1983. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 286:1489-93.
30. Bailar JC III, Mosteller F. 1988. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals: Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 108:266-73.
31. Bond GR, Mintz J, McHugo GJ. 1995. Statistical guidelines for the archive of PM&R. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76:784-7.
32. Haller KB, Holditch-Davies D. 2000. Guidelines for statistical reporting. JOGNN 29:121.
33. Altman DG. 1980. Statistics and ethics in medical research. Misuse of statistics is unethical. BMJ 281:1182-4.