Use of Pearson and Spearman correlation testing in Indian anesthesia journals: An audit.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Asha Tyagi, Rashmi Salhotra, Ananya Agrawal, Ishita Vashist, Rajeev K Malhotra
{"title":"Use of Pearson and Spearman correlation testing in Indian anesthesia journals: An audit.","authors":"Asha Tyagi, Rashmi Salhotra, Ananya Agrawal, Ishita Vashist, Rajeev K Malhotra","doi":"10.4103/joacp.joacp_13_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Correct usage and interpretation of biostatistical tests is imperative. Aim of the present article was to evaluate the use of \"correlation test\" for biostatistical analysis in two leading Indian journals of anesthesia and sensitize the readers regarding its correct usage.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A prospective analysis was done for all original articles using the correlation test (Pearson or Spearman) that were published in \"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\" (IJA) or \"Journal of Anaesthesiology and Clinical Pharmacology\" (JOACP) in the years 2019 and 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amongst all included original studies, correlation test were used in 6% (JOACP) and 6.5% (IJA) respectively (averaged for the years 2019 and 2020). Correlation test was usedinappropriately) for evaluating an aim of prediction/agreement/comparison, rather than association, in 25% and 10% instances each (JOACP and IJA). In both JOACP and IJA, there were high rates of using and interpreting results without citing 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of correlation coefficient (88% and 90%, respectively), <i>P</i> value for significance of the association (50% and 90%, respectively), or coefficient of discrimination (88% and 70%, respectively). In majority of the instances, test to ascertain presence of mandatory prerequisites such as normal distribution of data could not be found (62% and 90%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The complete potential of correlation test in exploring research questions is probably underappreciated. Further, even when used, its application and interpretation are prone to errors. We hope that the present analysis and narrative is a well-timed appropriate step in bridging the gaps in existing knowledge regarding use of correlation test in national anesthesia literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":14946,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10805225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacp.joacp_13_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Correct usage and interpretation of biostatistical tests is imperative. Aim of the present article was to evaluate the use of "correlation test" for biostatistical analysis in two leading Indian journals of anesthesia and sensitize the readers regarding its correct usage.

Material and methods: A prospective analysis was done for all original articles using the correlation test (Pearson or Spearman) that were published in "Indian Journal of Anaesthesia" (IJA) or "Journal of Anaesthesiology and Clinical Pharmacology" (JOACP) in the years 2019 and 2020.

Results: Amongst all included original studies, correlation test were used in 6% (JOACP) and 6.5% (IJA) respectively (averaged for the years 2019 and 2020). Correlation test was usedinappropriately) for evaluating an aim of prediction/agreement/comparison, rather than association, in 25% and 10% instances each (JOACP and IJA). In both JOACP and IJA, there were high rates of using and interpreting results without citing 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of correlation coefficient (88% and 90%, respectively), P value for significance of the association (50% and 90%, respectively), or coefficient of discrimination (88% and 70%, respectively). In majority of the instances, test to ascertain presence of mandatory prerequisites such as normal distribution of data could not be found (62% and 90%, respectively).

Conclusion: The complete potential of correlation test in exploring research questions is probably underappreciated. Further, even when used, its application and interpretation are prone to errors. We hope that the present analysis and narrative is a well-timed appropriate step in bridging the gaps in existing knowledge regarding use of correlation test in national anesthesia literature.

在印度麻醉期刊中使用Pearson和Spearman相关检验
背景和目的:必须正确使用和解释生物统计检验。本文旨在评估印度两本主要麻醉学期刊在生物统计分析中使用 "相关检验 "的情况,并向读者宣传其正确用法:对2019年和2020年发表在《印度麻醉学杂志》(IJA)或《麻醉学与临床药理学杂志》(JOACP)上的所有使用相关性检验(皮尔逊或斯皮尔曼)的原创文章进行了前瞻性分析:在所有纳入的原始研究中,使用相关性检验的分别占 6%(JOACP)和 6.5%(IJA)(2019 年和 2020 年的平均值)。分别有 25% 和 10%(JOACP 和 IJA)的相关性检验被用于评估预测/同意/比较的目的,而不是关联。)在 JOACP 和 IJA 中,使用和解释结果时未引用相关系数 95% 置信区间(分别为 88% 和 90%)、关联显著性 P 值(分别为 50% 和 90%)或区分系数(分别为 88% 和 70%)的比例很高。在大多数情况下,无法通过检验来确定是否存在数据正态分布等强制性先决条件(分别为 62% 和 90%):相关检验在探索研究问题方面的全部潜力可能还未得到充分重视。此外,即使使用了相关检验,其应用和解释也容易出错。我们希望目前的分析和叙述是适时的适当步骤,以弥补国内麻醉文献中有关使用相关性检验的现有知识差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
129
期刊介绍: The JOACP publishes original peer-reviewed research and clinical work in all branches of anaesthesiology, pain, critical care and perioperative medicine including the application to basic sciences. In addition, the journal publishes review articles, special articles, brief communications/reports, case reports, and reports of new equipment, letters to editor, book reviews and obituaries. It is international in scope and comprehensive in coverage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信