Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

Why we need to report more than 'Data were Analyzed by t-tests or ANOVA'.

Tracey L Weissgerber | Oscar Garcia-Valencia | Vesna D Garovic | Natasa M Milic | Stacey J Winham
eLife | 2018

Transparent reporting is essential for the critical evaluation of studies. However, the reporting of statistical methods for studies in the biomedical sciences is often limited. This systematic review examines the quality of reporting for two statistical tests, t-tests and ANOVA, for papers published in a selection of physiology journals in June 2017. Of the 328 original research articles examined, 277 (84.5%) included an ANOVA or t-test or both. However, papers in our sample were routinely missing essential information about both types of tests: 213 papers (95% of the papers that used ANOVA) did not contain the information needed to determine what type of ANOVA was performed, and 26.7% of papers did not specify what post-hoc test was performed. Most papers also omitted the information needed to verify ANOVA results. Essential information about t-tests was also missing in many papers. We conclude by discussing measures that could be taken to improve the quality of reporting.

Pubmed ID: 30574870

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

  • Agency: NCATS NIH HHS, United States
    Id: UL1 TR000135
  • Agency: NCI NIH HHS, United States
    Id: R03-CA212127

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


StatCheck (tool)

RRID:SCR_015487

Statistical checking software for psychology manuscripts. Users can upload APA-formatted PDF or HTML files to find errors in statistical reporting.

View all literature mentions