Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Statistical characteristics of analytical studies published in Peruvian medical journals from 2021 to 2022: A methodological study

*Corresponding author for this work
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

e0306334

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

PLoS ONE (Volume 19, Issue 7 July)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 07/2024

Publication status

Published - 07/2024

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85197629587
  • PubMed: 38959247

Abstract

Objective While statistical analysis plays a crucial role in medical science, some published studies might have utilized suboptimal analysis methods, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings. Critically appraising analytical approaches can help elevate the standard of evidence and ensure clinicians and other stakeholders have trustworthy results on which to base decisions. The aim of the present study was to examine the statistical characteristics of original articles published in Peruvian medical journals in 2021–2022. Design and setting We performed a methodological study of articles published between 2021 and 2022 from nine medical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru, Scopus, and Medline. We included original articles that conducted analytical analyses (i.e., association between variables). The statistical variables assessed were: statistical software used for analysis, sample size, and statistical methods employed (measures of effect), controlling for confounders, and the method employed for confounder control or epidemiological approaches. Results We included 313 articles (ranging from 11 to 77 across journals), of which 67.7% were cross-sectional studies. While 90.7% of articles specified the statistical software used, 78.3% omitted details on sample size calculation. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were commonly employed, whereas measures of association were less common. Only 13.4% of articles (ranging from 0% to 39% across journals) presented measures of effect controlling for confounding and explained the criteria for selecting such confounders. Conclusion This study revealed important statistical deficiencies within analytical studies published in Peruvian journals, including inadequate reporting of sample sizes, absence of measures of association and confounding control, and suboptimal explanations regarding the methodologies employed for adjusted analyses. These findings highlight the need for better statistical reporting and researcher-editor collaboration to improve the quality of research production and dissemination in Peruvian journals.