Statistical guidelines and expert statements are now available to assist in the analysis
and reporting of studies in some biomedical disciplines. We present here a more progressive
resource for sample-based studies, meta-analyses, and case studies in sports medicine
and exercise science. We offer forthright advice on the following controversial or
novel issues: using precision of estimation for inferences about population effects
in preference to null-hypothesis testing, which is inadequate for assessing clinical
or practical importance; justifying sample size via acceptable precision or confidence
for clinical decisions rather than via adequate power for statistical significance;
showing SD rather than SEM, to better communicate the magnitude of differences in
means and nonuniformity of error; avoiding purely nonparametric analyses, which cannot
provide inferences about magnitude and are unnecessary; using regression statistics
in validity studies, in preference to the impractical and biased limits of agreement;
making greater use of qualitative methods to enrich sample-based quantitative projects;
and seeking ethics approval for public access to the depersonalized raw data of a
study, to address the need for more scrutiny of research and better meta-analyses.
Advice on less contentious issues includes the following: using covariates in linear
models to adjust for confounders, to account for individual differences, and to identify
potential mechanisms of an effect; using log transformation to deal with nonuniformity
of effects and error; identifying and deleting outliers; presenting descriptive, effect,
and inferential statistics in appropriate formats; and contending with bias arising
from problems with sampling, assignment, blinding, measurement error, and researchers'
prejudices. This article should advance the field by stimulating debate, promoting
innovative approaches, and serving as a useful checklist for authors, reviewers, and
editors.