Review of statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Our purpose was an assessment of statistical analysis in studies published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as well as documentation of appropriate and inappropriate statistical application. All papers included in the Clinical Articles section and transactions of societies sections of the January through June 1994 issues of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (volume 170, numbers 1 to 6) were reviewed for statistical usage. Each paper was given a rating for the thoroughness of the listing of applied statistics and a rating for the appropriateness of statistical usage, when possible. Of the 190 available articles, 53 consisted of studies void of statistics, 8 of which required statistics or claimed significance without the use of statistics. Therefore 145 articles were included in the final analysis. Because of inappropriate or incomplete descriptions of statistics used within the article (52.6%), the ability to assess the appropriateness of usage was severely limited. However, 44 articles (30.3%) could be classified as having appropriate usage of statistics, whereas 46 articles (31.7%) were deemed to have inappropriate usage of statistics. Furthermore, 27 of these 46 articles were noted to have serious flaws. The lack of complete and detailed listings of applied statistics made it difficult to assess the appropriateness of more than half the studies examined, suggesting a need for more detailed guidelines as to the listing of statistical procedures used. Despite this fact, nearly one third of the articles contained examples of statistics used inappropriately. These findings suggest that a policy of statistical review be instituted.