IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stabio/v8y2016i2d10.1007_s12561-015-9138-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Statistics in Health Sciences: Situation Analysis and Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ricardo Ocaña-Riola

    (Campus Universitario de Cartuja
    Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada)

Abstract

Statistics plays a crucial role in research, planning and decision-making in the health sciences. Progress in technologies and continued research in computational statistics has enabled us to implement sophisticated mathematical models within software that are handled by non-statistician researchers. As a result, over the last decades, medical journals have published a host of papers that use some novel statistical method. The aim of this paper is to present a review on how the statistical methods are being applied in the construction of scientific knowledge in health sciences, as well as, to propose some improvement actions. From the early twentieth century, there has been a remarkable surge in scientific evidence alerting on the errors that many non-statistician researchers were making in applying statistical methods. Today, several studies continue showing that a large percentage of articles published in high-impact factor journals contain errors in data analysis or interpretation of results, with the ensuing repercussions on the validity and efficiency of the research conducted. Scientific community should reflect on the causes that have led to this situation, the consequences to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the solutions to this problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo Ocaña-Riola, 2016. "The Use of Statistics in Health Sciences: Situation Analysis and Perspective," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(2), pages 204-219, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:8:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-015-9138-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12561-015-9138-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12561-015-9138-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12561-015-9138-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    2. Lipworth, Wendy L. & Kerridge, Ian H. & Carter, Stacy M. & Little, Miles, 2011. "Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1056-1063, April.
    3. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    4. Lyons Russell, 2011. "The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-29, May.
    5. C. J. Wild & M. Pfannkuch, 1999. "Statistical Thinking in Empirical Enquiry," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 67(3), pages 223-248, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Bartels, Charlotte & Jäger, Simon & Obergruber, Natalie, 2020. "Long-Term Effects of Equal Sharing: Evidence from Inheritance Rules for Land," IZA Discussion Papers 13665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    5. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    6. Tomas Karlsson & Caroline Wigren, 2012. "Start-ups among university employees: the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 297-312, June.
    7. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    8. He, Jie (Jack) & Tian, Xuan, 2013. "The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 856-878.
    9. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, February.
    10. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    12. Joel B. Greenhouse & Howard J. Seltman, 2018. "On Teaching Statistical Practice: From Novice to Expert," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 72(2), pages 147-154, April.
    13. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    14. Michael Gibbs & Susanne Neckermann & Christoph Siemroth, 2017. "A Field Experiment in Motivating Employee Ideas," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 577-590, July.
    15. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    16. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    17. Mike W. Peng, 2019. "Global competition and diffusion of the “A” list," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    19. Nianhang Xu & Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2014. "Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 735-755, October.
    20. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:8:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-015-9138-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.