Statistical Errors in Health Journal Articles. A systematic review.
1
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia
2
Gold Coast Health, Southport, Australia
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Statistical errors can lead to misleading outcomes, harm patients, and erode trust in research. This review categorises and quantifies such errors in health studies.
METHODS:
We included studies analysing statistical errors in health journal articles. Three databases were searched, screened by three authors. One author extracted data, another checked it. Generalisability was assessed using a modified RoB-PrevMV tool.
RESULTS:
From 3,421 articles, 53 were included: 38 on various errors and 15 on specific ones. The first group listed 442 Data Analysis errors, and the second 31, based on Mansournia’s CHAMP Statement. Thirty-five statistical errors were cited in four or more articles, and eight errors were reported by at least 10 studies. “General incorrect statistical analysis” is reported most frequently (40 times), with prevalence ranging from 7%-96%, with median 22%. Of errors reported in >10 articles, “Failure to state the number of tails” has the highest median (67%, range 5–98%), and “Reporting paired vs independent tests” has the lowest (8%, range 0–58%).
CONCLUSIONS:
Statistical errors are highly prevalent in the health research literature and are highly heterogeneous across the included studies. There is a continued need for improvements in research methodology, education, and editorial oversight.
Statistical errors can lead to misleading outcomes, harm patients, and erode trust in research. This review categorises and quantifies such errors in health studies.
METHODS:
We included studies analysing statistical errors in health journal articles. Three databases were searched, screened by three authors. One author extracted data, another checked it. Generalisability was assessed using a modified RoB-PrevMV tool.
RESULTS:
From 3,421 articles, 53 were included: 38 on various errors and 15 on specific ones. The first group listed 442 Data Analysis errors, and the second 31, based on Mansournia’s CHAMP Statement. Thirty-five statistical errors were cited in four or more articles, and eight errors were reported by at least 10 studies. “General incorrect statistical analysis” is reported most frequently (40 times), with prevalence ranging from 7%-96%, with median 22%. Of errors reported in >10 articles, “Failure to state the number of tails” has the highest median (67%, range 5–98%), and “Reporting paired vs independent tests” has the lowest (8%, range 0–58%).
CONCLUSIONS:
Statistical errors are highly prevalent in the health research literature and are highly heterogeneous across the included studies. There is a continued need for improvements in research methodology, education, and editorial oversight.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
