FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2551987593> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2551987593 endingPage "1396" @default.
• W2551987593 startingPage "1395" @default.
• W2551987593 abstract "Peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery live and die by the quality of research they publish. Over the past few decades, there has been an explosion in the amount of research published, and ophthalmology has certainly benefited from this trend. However, this does have a downside for authors. As a result of the increasing number of submissions received, our journal, like many others, has to reject a greater number of manuscripts. With this growing body of work from which to choose, one of the main criteria we the editors follow is the quality of the statistical analysis. It is not unusual to find errors in the statistical analyses or in the interpretation of results. Through the peer-review and editorial decision-making processes, we strive for an ever-improving standard of statistical analysis; however, we are aware that sometimes the gold standard is not achieved. Reaching this standard is something our editorial staff is continually working toward. Given the range of statistical analyses available and the different circumstances under which they must be adopted, it can be very demanding for a novice researcher or clinician to keep up to speed. This has been a long-time issue1 and one that continues to be complex, as a 2014 study by Lisboa et al.2 shows. However, it is an unfortunate reality that, as outlined by Randleman in his editorial “Anatomy of a Manuscript,”3 many interesting research papers lose impact through being underpowered, showing unclear statistical significance, or presenting poor and/or incorrect statistical analysis. So what are some of the key areas that authors should keep in mind before beginning the research? McGhee and Gilhorta4 give some insight into the process, including the threats to validity and an overview of common terms and statistical errors. However, in regard to the statistics, the type of study and sample size are good starting points. For example, is it a prospective trial? If so, a sample-size calculation (power calculation) is essential. Similarly, for a retrospective trial, authors should include a power estimation. Further questions should include considerations, such as would the study be stronger with multiple comparisons? What is the unit of analysis? For example, what is more appropriate, 1 eye or 2 eyes? In determining whether the data display significance, I recommend Wilhelmus’ highly informative “Beyond the P” series.5–8 These 4 succinct articles offer an invaluable guide to understanding tests of statistical significance. During the research and analysis, authors should keep a checklist in mind: Are the data distributed effectively? What impact did the variables have? Should the mean or median be used? Have all relevant data been presented to the readers to enable them to draw the correct conclusions from the paper? These are just some questions authors must ask themselves at the beginning of, during, and in presenting every piece of research. (For further information on statistical analysis in ophthalmology, please refer to one of the many excellent books on this topic or read some of the work published by the Ophthalmic Statistics Group at https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/2016/02/ophthalmic-statistics-group-bjo-articles-available-online/. Accessed October 4, 2016.) If you have the opportunity, we recommend discussing your research plan with a statistician before you begin as well as in the final manuscript preparation. The data should be collated from the outset and presented in the way your chosen journal has requested. At JCRS, for example, we have guidelines on the presentation of visual acuity and refractive surgical outcomes.9,10 However, the role of ensuring good statistical analysis also lies, in part, with the readership, who demand the details that enable them to use the published research in their clinical practice and in further related research. If a piece of research falls short, it should be highlighted so that it can be discarded for a more thorough investigation or the shortcomings should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The Letters to Editor section is, therefore, a vital tool in nurturing the environment for better research. In this issue, we have a range of different study types, each of which presents researchers with different considerations in regard to the methodology design and statistical analysis. For example, Henderson et al. (pages 1449–1455) designed a prospective randomized masked clinical trial based at 2 centers in a bid to develop a new preventative approach for negative dysphotopsias. Pokroy et al. (pages 1408–1414) performed a retrospective cohort study to analyze the data from a large database to identify the incidence of and associations involved in the retreatment of myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. There is also a prospective case series from Ninomiya et al. (pages 1431–1440) that assesses 1-year clinical results of toric intraocular lenses in eyes with corneal with-the-rule, against-the-rule, and oblique astigmatism. Although this is just a small sample of the articles included in this issue, as with any research, all should be read with a questioning mind. Research is a costly affair, both in terms of time and resources; however, without it our profession cannot move forward. However, to do this we have to ensure that the results we publish show what we claim they show. We encourage both our authors and readers to always strive for the gold standard in statistical analysis and to always question what they read before basing future treatment protocols on that information." @default.
• W2551987593 created "2016-11-30" @default.
• W2551987593 creator A5047238841 @default.
• W2551987593 date "2016-10-01" @default.
• W2551987593 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2551987593 title "Searching for significance" @default.
• W2551987593 cites W171769046 @default.
• W2551987593 cites W2100375042 @default.
• W2551987593 cites W2146389496 @default.
• W2551987593 cites W2616127909 @default.
• W2551987593 cites W131723473 @default.
• W2551987593 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.005" @default.
• W2551987593 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27839591" @default.
• W2551987593 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2551987593 type Work @default.
• W2551987593 sameAs 2551987593 @default.
• W2551987593 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2551987593 countsByYear W25519875932017 @default.
• W2551987593 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2551987593 hasAuthorship W2551987593A5047238841 @default.
• W2551987593 hasBestOaLocation W25519875931 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C111472728 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C126322002 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C138885662 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C15744967 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C17744445 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C199360897 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C199539241 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C2779530757 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C40993552 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C41008148 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C41458344 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C527412718 @default.
• W2551987593 hasConceptScore W2551987593C71924100 @default.
• W2551987593 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W2551987593 hasLocation W25519875931 @default.
• W2551987593 hasLocation W25519875932 @default.
• W2551987593 hasOpenAccess W2551987593 @default.
• W2551987593 hasPrimaryLocation W25519875931 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W1484368743 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2060597392 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2347801125 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2356328485 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2361463911 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2363160663 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2380389143 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2551987593 hasRelatedWork W3141326704 @default.
• W2551987593 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W2551987593 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2551987593 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2551987593 magId "2551987593" @default.
• W2551987593 workType "article" @default.