Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 January 2009
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
- Vol. 41 (1) , 3-12
- https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e31818cb278
Abstract
Statistical guidelines and expert statements are now available to assist in the analysis and reporting of studies in some biomedical disciplines. We present here a more progressive resource for sample-based studies, meta-analyses, and case studies in sports medicine and exercise science. We offer forthright advice on the following controversial or novel issues: using precision of estimation for inferences about population effects in preference to null-hypothesis testing, which is inadequate for assessing clinical or practical importance; justifying sample size via acceptable precision or confidence for clinical decisions rather than via adequate power for statistical significance; showing SD rather than SEM, to better communicate the magnitude of differences in means and nonuniformity of error; avoiding purely nonparametric analyses, which cannot provide inferences about magnitude and are unnecessary; using regression statistics in validity studies, in preference to the impractical and biased limits of agreement; making greater use of qualitative methods to enrich sample-based quantitative projects; and seeking ethics approval for public access to the depersonalized raw data of a study, to address the need for more scrutiny of research and better meta-analyses. Advice on less contentious issues includes the following: using covariates in linear models to adjust for confounders, to account for individual differences, and to identify potential mechanisms of an effect; using log transformation to deal with nonuniformity of effects and error; identifying and deleting outliers; presenting descriptive, effect, and inferential statistics in appropriate formats; and contending with bias arising from problems with sampling, assignment, blinding, measurement error, and researchers' prejudices. This article should advance the field by stimulating debate, promoting innovative approaches, and serving as a useful checklist for authors, reviewers, and editors.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Erratum: Risk Factors and Risk Statistics for Sports InjuriesClinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 2007
- Making Meaningful Inferences About MagnitudesInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2006
- Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological SocietyJournal of Applied Physiology, 2004
- Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiativeBMJ, 2003
- The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and ElaborationClinical Chemistry, 2003
- The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and ElaborationAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and ScienceSports Medicine, 2000
- Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancementMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1999
- Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic TestsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1994
- Users' Guides to the Medical LiteratureJAMA, 1994