Could adherence to SAMPL Guidelines improve statistical reporting in clinical manuscripts? Insights from 150 editorial reviews for specialty journals

Abstract

Background

Although statistical reporting guidelines such as SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) exist, statistical errors remain common in biomedical manuscripts. This study investigates whether early author adherence to SAMPL can reduce the need for statistical revision and offers recommendations for broader editorial implementation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 150 statistical reviews performed by the author between 2020 and 2025 for clinical medicine journals. Each manuscript was assessed for adherence to key SAMPL principles, including clarity of statistical methods, reporting of assumptions, and presentation of descriptive data. Outcomes were categorized as acceptance, revision (major/minor), or rejection.

Results

Of the 150 manuscripts, 99 (66 %) were accepted following SAMPL-based revisions: 87 after one round and 12 after two rounds (p < 0.001). The remaining 51 (34 %) were rejected, primarily due to issues such as inappropriate test use or lack of methodological justification. Among 39 manuscripts with conflicting reviewer opinions, SAMPL-based review helped resolve ambiguity, resulting in 25 rejections and 14 acceptances (p = 0.02). Of the accepted manuscripts, 65 % required major revisions and 35 % minor revisions (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Proactive adherence to the SAMPL Guidelines may reduce editorial workload, improve clarity, and lower preventable rejections. Integrating structured reporting standards into submission processes could enhance transparency and consistency in statistical reporting. These findings support the use of SAMPL-based checklists to improve manuscript quality and streamline peer review.