Frequency of statistical methods in ophthalmology journal articles: a review

Marko M. Popovic,Dolev Yissar,Lazar Joksimovic,Meagan Thang,Jonathan Micieli,Yvonne M. Buys,Rajeev H. Muni,Matthew B. Schlenker
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17469899.2020.1764350
2020-05-03
Expert Review of Ophthalmology
Abstract:Introduction: A variability in statistical complexity exists across the ophthalmology literature. This review investigates the frequency of statistical methods in ophthalmology articles and aims to determine differences based on study design, subspecialty and journal.Areas covered: Original articles published in the top three comprehensive ophthalmology journals based on 2017 impact factor were identified. Searches of Ovid MEDLINE were used to elicit relevant literature. In total, 325 articles were identified from top comprehensive ophthalmology journals. The top three statistical methods were contingency tables, t-tests and non-parametric tests. Less than half (n = 136, 41.8%) of included articles did not use statistical methods or relied on descriptive statistics. Uveitis publications had the greatest number of statistical methods per paper, while oculoplastics had the lowest. Randomized controlled trials had the greatest number of methods per paper, while case reports and correspondences had the fewest. The average number of methods was 2.1 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1.5 in Ophthalmology and 1.0 in JAMA Ophthalmology.Expert opinion: The statistics of approximately half of all ophthalmology articles in top comprehensive journals are accessible to readers with an understanding of four common statistical methods: descriptive statistics, contingency tables, t-tests and non-parametric tests.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?