Common misconceptions about data analysis and statistics

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology

Volumn 387, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1017-1023

  Motulsky, Harvey J ^a  

^a GraphPad Software   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NULL HYPOTHESIS; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84921938478     PISSN: 00281298     EISSN: 14321912     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00210-014-1037-6     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Anonymous (2013). Trouble at the lab. The Economist 409:23-27, 2013
2. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:533
3. Berry DA (2007) The difficult and ubiquitous problems of multiplicities. Pharm Stat 6:155-160
4. Cohen J (1994) The earth is round (p∈<∈0.05). Am Psychol 49:997-1003
5. Collins FS, Tabak LA (2014) Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505:612-613
6. Colquhoun D (2014). An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of P values. http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5296
7. FDA (2010) Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Accessed July 29, 2014 at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf
8. Hankins, M. Still not significant. Psychologically Flawed April 21, 2013. Accessed July 28, 2013 at mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/
9. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124
10. Kairalla JA, Coffey CS, Thomann MA, Muller KE (2012) Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities. Trials 13:145-145
11. Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2:196-217
12. Kriegeskorte N, Simmons WK, Bellgowan PSF, Baker CI (2009) Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nat Neurosci 12:535-540
13. Marino MJ (2014) The use and misuse of statistical methodologies in pharmacology research. Biochem Pharmacol 87:78-92
14. Motulsky, HJ (2014a) Intuitive Biostatistics 3rd edition, Oxford University Press
15. Motulsky HJ (2014b) Using simulations to calculate the false discovery rate. Accessed June 1, 2014 at http://www.graphpad.com/support/faqid/1923/
16. Motulsky, HJ (2014c). Opinion: Never use the word 'significant' in a scientific paper. Advances in Regenerative Biology 2014, 1: 25155. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3402/arb.v1.25155 (in press)
17. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discovery 10:712-713. DOI 10.1038/
18. Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22:1359-1366
19. Ziliak, S, & McCloskey, DN (2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN∈=∈0472050079.