Abstract:Most published scientific studies or reviews will begin with an abstract, which is essentially a summary of what the full paper contains. For non-open access papers, the abstract is the only part of the paper which is freely available and therefore would be the most frequently read section of the paper [1]. Most journals have policies regarding how an abstract should be presented, whether it be structured or not, and word limits (often only 250 to 300 words are allowed) are strictly enforced. Since it is the only freely available part of the paper, it acts as the avenue investigators use to vie for readers’ attention. Although it is often not a scientist’s intention to deliberately mislead readers, spin and biased reporting in the abstract are difficult to avoid. Since over a thousand papers are published every single week, investigators are resorting to using words such as ‘novel’, ‘amazing’ and ‘innovative’ to boost readership [2]. Claims not supported by the data may be propagated in study abstracts, and it is only when data embedded deep in the text is carefully examined that the reader draw any conclusions about the findings. In 2005, John Ioannidis, Professor of Statistics at Stanford University, published a seminal paper in PLOS One explaining ‘why most published research findings are false’ [3]. Two of the myriad problems identified in science reporting were misuse of statistics, and overinterpretation of data. Statistical errors and inappropriate use of statistics in medical research are potentially very serious problems as they may lead researchers to draw erroneous conclusions, which are then trumpeted in a study’s abstract and may lead to press releases if the finding is interesting enough [4]. Though statistics is widely acknowledged as a powerful tool in the scientific research process, there is consensus that statistical standards in the medical literature are generally low and despite Ioannidis’ warning over a decade ago, errors are still commonplace. It is still the contention of many researchers that data on every single biomarker, demographic and outcome should be collected in any study, as far as is physically feasible, and then all data collected is analysed to see ‘where the chips fall’. That way, something ‘significant’ and/or ‘interesting’ is bound to come up. Few researchers realise that the most important phase of any research is the planning and design stage, and that correct application of statistical analyses is essential. This article will outline two of the most prolific statistical errors seen in medical manuscripts.

Genotoxic risk assessment in white blood cells of occupationally exposed workers before and after alteration of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) profile in the production material: comparison with PAH air and urinary metabolite levels

Adjuvant synergy: The effects of nasal coadministration of adjuvants

Differential Immune Response Patterns Induced by Anionic and Cationic Lipid Adjuvants in Intranasal Anti-Influenza Immunization

Combined nanoemulsion and RIG-I agonist adjuvants-activation of diverse pathways for a broad spectrum influenza vaccine.

Co-adjuvanting Nod2-stimulating bacteria with a TLR7 agonist elicits potent protective immunity against respiratory virus infection

Effective Respiratory CD8 T-Cell Immunity to Influenza Virus Induced by Intranasal Carbomer-Lecithin-Adjuvanted Non-replicating Vaccines

A Comparative Study on the Mechanisms of Innate Immune Responses in Mice Induced by Alum and Actinidia Eriantha Polysaccharide.

Enhanced mucosal B- and T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 after heterologous intramuscular mRNA prime/intranasal protein boost vaccination with a combination adjuvant

Don't judge a book by its cover, don't judge a study by its abstract. Common statistical errors seen in medical papers

MRI findings in injured articular cartilage of the knee correlated with surgical findings.

Antigen-conjugated N-trimethylaminoethylmethacrylate Chitosan Nanoparticles Induce Strong Immune Responses after Nasal Administration

Plasmids encoding the mucosal chemokines CCL27 and CCL28 are effective adjuvants in eliciting antigen-specific immunity in vivo

An ultrasensitive enzyme-free electrochemical immunosensor based on redox cycling amplification using methylene blue.

Multicomponent intranasal adjuvant for mucosal and durable systemic SARS-CoV-2 immunity in young and aged mice

Enhancement of X-ray transformation by 12-O-tetradecanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate in a cloned line of C3H mouse embryo cells.

Alpha-D-glucan nanoparticulate adjuvant induces a transient inflammatory response at the injection site and targets antigen to migratory dendritic cells

A molecular atlas of innate immunity to adjuvanted and live attenuated vaccines, in mice

Multifunctional PLGA-based nanoparticles encapsulating simultaneously hydrophilic antigen and hydrophobic immunomodulator for mucosal immunization.

Fabrication of chitosan-based emulsion as an adjuvant to enhance nasal mucosal immune responses

Implementing the Ratio Test Statistic to Compare Two Suppliers for Linear Profiles

Postpartum Ovarian Vein Thrombosis After Vaginal Delivery: A Report of 11 Cases