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.

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

Productivity of Agave deserti: measurement by dry weight and monthly prediction using physiological responses to environmental parameters

MINCLE and TLR9 agonists synergize to induce Th1/Th17 vaccine memory and mucosal recall in mice and non-human primates

Systematic Evaluation of Regiochemistry and Lipidation of Aryl Trehalose Mincle Agonists

Recent Advances in the Development of Mincle-Targeting Vaccine Adjuvants

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

Promotion of Th17 Polarized Immunity via Co-Delivery of Mincle Agonist and Tuberculosis Antigen Using Silica Nanoparticles

The Adjuvant Double Mutant Escherichia coli Heat Labile Toxin Enhances IL-17A Production in Human T Cells Specific for Bacterial Vaccine Antigens

Toll-Like Receptor Ligand-Based Vaccine Adjuvants Require Intact MyD88 Signaling in Antigen-Presenting Cells for Germinal Center Formation and Antibody Production

Soluble and Microparticle-Based Delivery of TLR4 and TLR9 Agonists Differentially Modulate 3D Chemotaxis of Bone Marrow-Derived Dendritic Cells

Analysis of Transect Counts to Monitor Population Size in Endangered Insects The Case of the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, Euphilotes Bernardino Allyni

Cord Factor and Peptidoglycan Recapitulate the Th17-Promoting Adjuvant Activity of Mycobacteria Through Mincle/CARD9 Signaling and the Inflammasome

ADP-ribosylating adjuvant reveals plasticity in cDC1 cells that drive mucosal Th17 cell development and protection against influenza virus infection

Monophosphoryl lipid A directly regulates Th1 cytokine production in human CD4+ T-cells through Toll-like receptor 2 and 4

Induction of Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Responses Upon Subcutaneous Administration of a Subunit Vaccine Adjuvanted With an Emulsion Containing the Toll-Like Receptor 3 Ligand Poly(I:C)

Functional and epigenetic changes in monocytes from adults immunized with an AS01-adjuvanted vaccine

Adjuvant-induced Human Monocyte Secretome Profiles Reveal Adjuvant- and Age-specific Protein Signatures

Vaccination with Mincle agonist UM-1098 and mycobacterial antigens induces protective Th1 and Th17 responses

Gene Expression Profiles Identify Both MyD88-independent and MyD88-dependent Pathways Involved in the Maturation of Dendritic Cells Mediated by Heparan Sulfate: a Novel Adjuvant.

Cutting Edge: TNF Is Essential for Mycobacteria-Induced MINCLE Expression, Macrophage Activation, and Th17 Adjuvanticity

TLR4 and TLR7/8 Adjuvant Combinations Generate Different Vaccine Antigen-Specific Immune Outcomes in Minipigs when Administered via the ID or IN Routes