Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel
2007; American Physical Society; Volume: 31; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1152/advan.00022.2007
ISSN1522-1229
AutoresDouglas Curran‐Everett, Dale Benos,
Tópico(s)Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
ResumoPerspectivesGuidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequelDouglas Curran-Everett, and Dale J. BenosDouglas Curran-EverettDivision of Biostatistics, National Jewish Medical and Research Center, School of Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, ColoradoDepartments of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, School of Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, ColoradoDepartments of Physiology and Biophysics, School of Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, andDale J. BenosDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AlabamaPublished Online:01 Dec 2007https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00022.2007MoreSectionsPDF (106 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat we scientists rely on statistics. In part, this is because we use statistics to report our own science and to interpret the published science of others. For some of us, reporting and interpreting statistics can be like reading an unfamiliar language: it is awkward to do, and it is easy to misinterpret meaning. To facilitate these tasks, in 2004, we wrote an editorial (8) in which we proposed specific guidelines to help investigators analyze data and communicate results. These guidelines for reporting statistics can be accessed through the American Physiological Society (APS) Information for Authors (4).In this followup editorial, we report initial reactions to the guidelines and the subsequent impact of the guidelines on reporting practices. We also revisit three guidelines. In 2004, we hoped the guidelines would improve and standardize the caliber of statistical information reported throughout journals published by the APS. We still do.Initial ReactionsInitial reactions to the guidelines were mixed. What we heard, however, was quite positive. This is really very helpful indeed. I wish all journals would adopt this as standard.Physiologist1 1Because these comments reflect unsolicited personal correspondence, we have elected to withhold the names.We were delighted that many of the people who congratulated—even thanked—us were statisticians. I have just read the guidelines published in Physiological Genomics and wish to congratulate you on a nice job! [About] 6 years ago I reviewed a paper for an APS journal … I offered several trivial biological suggestions and then asked [the authors] to report the [standard deviation] rather than [standard error] to represent the variability about their sample mean. The authors adopted all of the biological suggestions but rejected the one statistical critique stating that it was standard policy to report the [standard error] and their colleagues all expected it. I am quite certain that these guidelines will prompt much grousing from the biologists about being too theoretical and unnecessary, as well as from the statisticians that you left out the rules nearest and dearest to their hearts.StatisticianIf statisticians groused about the guidelines, they never groused to us. Good guidelines … Quite reasonable without being overly fussy. The interpretation of P values is much more sensible than one often gets with medical journals, where P < 0.05 is all they care about.StatisticianEvery now and then, a biologist did grouse: I do not agree with the edict about presenting data as [standard deviations] rather than [standard errors of the mean]. These presentations are for visual effect only … To me, this edict is silly, particularly since showing [standard deviations rather than standard errors of the mean] is a cosmetic issue only.PhysiologistOne biologist was moved to write a Letter to the Editor (15). For the most part, when someone did complain about the guidelines, it was Guideline 5. Report variability using a standard deviation. about which they complained.Subsequent ImpactWithin a year, the Editor of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology had solicited a critique of the guidelines (18). The critique set the stage for the journal to revise its own guidelines for reporting statistics (J. Ludbrook, personal communications).2 2It has: see http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/submit.asp?ref=0305-1870&site=1.In May 2006, we received an email from Australia that hinted the guidelines had little immediate impact on reporting practices: Many of us were pleased to see this article come out, particularly in a major, trend-setting publication. Early optimism faded as authors and editors did not appear to want to reinforce your message… Most of my colleagues [report standard errors and P < 0.05] and, when questioned, tell me that they are using the appropriate method: that is what I will find in the journals, that is what their predecessors used, they know what it means (so why don't I?), and in any case [the result is obvious].PhysiologistTo estimate the actual impact of the guidelines on reporting practices, we sampled original articles published from August… 2003 through July 2004, the year before the guidelines, and we reviewed all original articles published from August 2005 through July 2006, the second year after the guidelines. If the guidelines affected the reporting of statistics, we expected the incidence of standard errors to decrease and the incidence of standard deviations, confidence intervals, and precise P values to increase.What did our literature review reveal? That the guidelines had virtually no impact on the occurrence of standard errors, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and precise P values (Table 1). There were two exceptions: in one journal, the use of standard errors decreased from 88% to 81%; in another journal, the use of precise P values increased from 4% to 17%.Table 1. American Physiological Society journal manuscripts in 1996, 2003, and 2006: reporting of statisticsnStandard DeviationStandard ErrorConfidence IntervalPrecise P Value199620032006199620032006199620032006199620032006199620032006Am J Physiol Cell Physiol433032221201988737800171313 Endocrinol Metab282830218713868987042439*30 Gastrointest Liver Physiol26282728252492797700241417 Heart Circ Physiol6062627172322877677051101920 Lung Cell Mol Physiol2526261201922848881*00241918 Regul Integr Comp Physiol41293841710128890900011541*27 Renal Physiol27252891512159380790417417*J Appl Physiol625751924393579676507*4626*34J Neurophysiol5861699362330696457256530*38Values are percentages of journals that reported numbers of manuscripts reviewed (n), standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and precise P value; for example, P = 0.03 (rather than P < 0.05) or P = 0.12 (rather than P > 0.05). In 1996, these journals published a total of 3693 original articles; the number of articles reviewed represents a 10% sample (systematic random sampling, fixed start) of the original articles published by each journal (9). From August 2003 through July 2004, these journals published a total of roughly 3500 original articles; the number of articles reviewed represents a 10% sample (systematic random sampling, fixed start) of the original articles published by each journal. From August 2005 through July 2006, these journals published a total of 3675 original articles; the number of articles reviewed represents a complete survey of the original articles published by each journal.*Italicized pairs indicate values that differ statistically from 2003 to 2006 (0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10, exact binomial probability, 1-tailed) and from 1996 to 2003 (0.001 ≤ P ≤ 0.05, Fisher's exact test, 2-tailed).The 2004 Guidelines RevisitedThese guidelines addressed the reporting of statistics in the results section of a manuscript: Guideline 5. Report variability using a standard deviation. Guideline 6. Report uncertainty about scientific importance using a confidence interval. Guideline 7. Report a precise P value. Our 2004 editorial (8) summarized the theoretic rationale for each of these guidelines. The subsequent publication of Scientific Style and Format (6) reinforced their application. Because they offer the greatest benefit to authors and readers of results sections, we revisit each of these guidelines.Guideline 5. Report variability using a standard deviation.33This guideline is mirrored in Scientific Style and Format Sections 12.5.2.3 and 12.5.2.4 of Ref. 6.The distinction between standard deviation and standard error of the mean is far more than cosmetic: it is an essential one. These statistics estimate different things: a standard deviation estimates the variability among individual observations in a sample, but a standard error of the mean estimates the theoretical variability among sample means (8, 9).Individual observations in a sample differ because the population from which they were drawn is distributed over a range of possible values. The study of this intrinsic variability is important: it may reveal something novel about underlying scientific processes (12). The standard deviation describes the variability among the observations we investigators measure; it characterizes the dispersion of sample observations about the sample mean.In contrast, the standard error of the mean provides an answer to a theoretical question: If I repeat my experiment an infinite number of times, by how much will the possible sample means vary about the population mean?The fundamental difference between standard deviation and standard error of the mean is reflected further in how these statistics are defined. The standard deviation s and the standard error of the mean SE {ȳ} are (1) where n is the number of observations in the sample, yi is an individual observation, and ȳ is the sample mean. Because it incorporates information about sample size, the standard error of the mean is a misguided estimate of variability among observations (Fig. 1 and Ref. 8). By itself, the standard error of the mean has no particular value (9). Even with a large sample size (n = 35), the interval (2) is just a 68% confidence interval. In other words, we can declare, with modest 68% confidence, that the population mean is included in the interval [ȳ − SE{ȳ}, ȳ + SE{ȳ}].Fig. 1.The distinction between standard deviation and standard error of the mean. Suppose random variable Y is distributed normally with mean μ = 0 and standard deviation σ = 1 (inset). If you draw from this population random samples with sizes that range from 5 to 10,000 observations, for each sample you can estimate the mean, the standard deviation, and the standard error of the mean (see Eq. 1). As sample size increases, the sample standard deviation fluctuates more tightly about the population standard deviation σ. If sample size is infinite–if the entire population is sampled–then the sample standard deviation s will equal the population standard deviation σ. As sample size increases, the standard error of the mean decreases progessively because of its dependence on sample size. If sample size is infinite, then the standard error of the mean will be 0, and the sample mean ȳ will equal the population mean μ: there is no uncertainty about the true value of the population mean.Download figureDownload PowerPointTo summarize, in most experiments, it is essential that an investigator reports on the variability among the actual individual measurements. A sample standard deviation does this: it describes the variability among the actual experimental measurements. On the other hand, if an investigator were to repeat an experiment many times, and each time calculate a sample mean, the average of those sample means will be the population mean; the standard deviation of those sample means will be the standard error of the mean (9). A standard error is simply the standard deviation of a statistic: here, the sample mean. In nearly all experiments, however, a single sample mean is computed. Therefore, it is inappropriate to report a standard error of the mean–a theoretical estimate of the variability of possible values of a sample mean about a population mean–as an estimate of the variability among actual experimental measurements.Guideline 6. Report uncertainty about scientific importance using a confidence interval.44This guideline is mirrored in Scientific Style and Format Section 12.5.2.2 of Ref. 6.A confidence interval focuses attention on the magnitude and uncertainty of an experimental result. In essence, a confidence interval helps answer the question, is the experimental effect big enough to be relevant? A confidence interval is a strong tool for inference: it provides the same statistical information as the P value from a hypothesis test, it circumvents the drawbacks inherent to a hypothesis test, and it provides information about scientific importance (9).In biomedical research, the routine use of confidence intervals is recommended (1–3, 8, 9, 13), and, in clinical medicine, the use of confidence intervals is indeed widespread (2, 3). In journals published by APS, however, the incidence of confidence intervals was as rare in 2006 as it was in 1996 (see Table 1).Guideline 7. Report a precise P value.55This guideline is mirrored in Scientific Style and Format Section 12.5.1.2 of Ref. 6.In 2004 we wrote that a precise P value communicates more information with the same amount of ink, and it permits readers to assess a statistical result according to their own criteria (8). You would think most authors would report a precise P value. Most do not (see Table 1).On occasion, an author who reported a precise P value did so with unnecessary precision: The guidelines for rounding P values to sufficient precision are listed in Table 2.Table 2. Guidelines for rounding P values to sufficient precisionP Value RangeRounding Precision0.01 ≤ P ≤ 1.00Round to 2 decimal places: round P = 0.031 to P = 0.030.001 ≤ P ≤ 0.009Round to 3 decimal places: round P = 0.0066 to P = 0.007P < 0.001Report as P < 0.001; more precision is unnecessaryThe Next StepAll of us–authors, reviewers, editors–gravitate toward the familiar. For most of us, reporting standard deviations, confidence intervals, and precise P values is quite unfamiliar. To make matters worse, these reporting practices have been unfamiliar for decades. There is considerable inertia to overcome before standard deviations, confidence intervals, and precise P values become commonplace in journals published by the APS.Reform is difficult (5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16). The question is, how can we help it along? In part, the answer is that all of us–authors, reviewers, editors, Publications Committee–must make a concerted effort to use and report statistics in ways that are consistent with best practices. With these guidelines (8), we summarized the best practices of statistics.In 2004, we hoped that the guidelines would improve and standardize the caliber of statistical information reported throughout journals published by the APS. It is clear that the mere publication of the guidelines failed to impact reporting practices. We still have an opportunity.We thank Margaret Reich (Director of Publications and Executive Editor, American Physiological Society) for a 1-yr print subscription to APS journals, and we thank Matthew Strand (National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO) and the Editors of the American journals for comments and suggestions.REFERENCES1 Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: developments in the 1980s. Stat Med 10: 1897–1913, 1991.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar2 Altman DG. Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends. Stat Med 19: 3275–3289, 2000.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar3 Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ. Statistics with Confidence. Bristol: BMJ Books, 2000.Google Scholar4 American Physiological Society. Instructions for Preparing Your Manuscript. Manuscript Sections (online). http://www.the-aps.org/publications/i4a/prep_manuscript.htm#manuscript_sections [16 April 2007].Google Scholar5 Belia S, Fidler F, Williams J, Cumming G. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychol Methods 10: 389–396, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar6 Council of Science Editors, Style Manual Subcommittee. Scientific Style and Format: the CSE Manual for Authors; Editors; and Publishers (7th ed.). Reston, VA: Rockefeller Univ. Press, 2006.Google Scholar7 Cumming G, Fidler F, Leonard M, Kalinowski P, Christiansen A, Kleinig A, Lo J, McMenamin N, Wilson S. Statistical reform in psychology: is anything changing? Psychol Sci. In press.Google Scholar8 Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 287: H447–H449, 2004. http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/2/H447.Link | ISI | Google Scholar9 Curran-Everett D, Taylor S, Kafadar K. Fundamental concepts in statistics: elucidation and illustration. J Appl Physiol 85: 775–786, 1998. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/775.Link | ISI | Google Scholar10 Fidler F, Cumming G, Thomason N, Pannuzzo D, Smith J, Fyffe P, Edmonds H, Harrington C, Schmitt R. Toward improved statistical reporting in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol 73: 136–143, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar11 Fidler F, Thomason N, Cumming G, Finch S, Leeman J. Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals, but can't make them think: statistical reform lessons from medicine. Psychol Sci 15: 119–126, 2004.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar12 Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. New York: Hafner, 1954, p 3.Google Scholar13 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. IV. Manuscript Preparation and Submission (online). http://www.icmje.org/index.html#manuscript [14 April 2007].Google Scholar14 Kendall PC. Editorial. J Consult Clin Psychol 65: 3–5, 1997.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar15 Koehnle T, Curran-Everett D, Benos DJ. The proof is not in the P value. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 288: R777–R778, 2005. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/288/3/R777.Link | Google Scholar16 La Greca AM. Editorial. J Consult Clin Psychol 73: 3–5, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar17 Lang TA, Secic M. How to Report Statistics in Medicine: Annotated Guidelines for Authors; Editors; and Reviewers. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 1997.Google Scholar18 Ludbrook J. Comments on journal guidelines for reporting statistics. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 32: 324–326, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. Curran-Everett, Div. of Biostatistics, M222, National Jewish Medical and Research Center, 1400 Jackson St., Denver, CO 80206 (e-mail: [email protected]) Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation CollectionsAPS Cross-Journal CollectionsGuidelines in Physiology ResearchAdvances in Physiology Education CollectionsReporting StatisticsStatistics Cited ByPrimer on reporting statistics: kayaks and walking trees once moreDouglas Curran-Everett14 December 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 48, No. 1LecturePlus: a learner-centered teaching method to promote deep learningMuhammad Jawad Hashim, Romona Govender, Nadirah Ghenimi, Alexander Kieu, andMoien A. B. Khan1 March 2023 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 2Practical notes on popular statistical tests in renal physiologyMykola Mamenko, Daria V. Lysikova, Denisha R. Spires, Sergey S. Tarima, andDaria V. Ilatovskaya14 September 2022 | American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, Vol. 323, No. 4Announcing the Editorial Board Fellowship Program of the American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologyLarissa A. Shimoda, Chunxue Bai, Nathan W. Bartlett, Julie A. Bastarache, Carol Feghali-Bostwick, Wolfgang M. Kuebler, Y. S. Prakash, Eric P. Schmidt, andRory E. Morty7 July 2021 | American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Vol. 321, No. 1Evolution in statistics: P values, statistical significance, kayaks, and walking treesDouglas Curran-Everett15 May 2020 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 44, No. 2Cold water immersion attenuates anabolic signaling and skeletal muscle fiber hypertrophy, but not strength gain, following whole-body resistance trainingJackson J. Fyfe, James R. Broatch, Adam J. Trewin, Erik D. Hanson, Christos K. Argus, Andrew P. Garnham, Shona L. Halson, Remco C. Polman, David J. Bishop, andAaron C. Petersen9 November 2019 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 127, No. 5Manipulating fenestrations in young and old liver sinusoidal endothelial cellsNicholas J. Hunt, Glen P. Lockwood, Alessandra Warren, Hong Mao, Peter A. G. McCourt, David G. Le Couteur, andVictoria C. Cogger27 December 2018 | American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, Vol. 316, No. 1Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice15 August 2018 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 13, No. 8Statistical considerations in reporting cardiovascular researchMerry L. Lindsey*, Gillian A. Gray, Susan K. Wood, andDouglas Curran-Everett*8 August 2018 | American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, Vol. 315, No. 2Computation of Probability Associated with Anderson–Darling Statistic25 May 2018 | Mathematics, Vol. 6, No. 6Inflammatory cytokine-induced changes in neural network activity measured by waveform analysis of high-content calcium imaging in murine cortical neurons22 August 2017 | Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, No. 1Small steps to help improve the caliber of the reporting of statisticsDouglas Curran-Everett5 July 2017 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 41, No. 3Rest interval duration does not influence adaptations in acid/base transport proteins following 10 wk of sprint-interval training in active womenCian McGinley, andDavid J. Bishop1 May 2017 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 312, No. 5Influence of training intensity on adaptations in acid/base transport proteins, muscle buffer capacity, and repeated-sprint ability in active menCian McGinley, andDavid J. Bishop5 December 2016 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 121, No. 6Neuroprotection mediated by inhibition of calpain during acute viral encephalitis27 June 2016 | Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, No. 1A myosin activator improves actin assembly and sarcomere function of human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes with a troponin T point mutationK. M. Broughton*, J. Li*, E. Sarmah, C. M. Warren, Y.-H. Lin, M. P. Henze, V. Sanchez-Freire, R. J. Solaro, andB. Russell1 July 2016 | American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, Vol. 311, No. 1Effects of erythropoietin on systemic hematocrit and oxygen transport in the splenectomized horseRespiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Vol. 225Standard Error or Standard Deviation?2 April 2015 | Pediatric Cardiology, Vol. 36, No. 5Statistical Use and Misuse in Scientific PublicationsStatistical Limits and the Central Limit TheoremBasic statistical reporting for articles published in Biomedical Journals: The "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature" or the SAMPL GuidelinesInternational Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1Standard deviation and standard error of the meanKorean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 68, No. 3Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature: The SAMPL Guidelines*22 August 2014Neuromyelitis optica IgG stimulates an immunological response in rat astrocyte cultures3 February 2014 | Glia, Vol. 62, No. 5Advances: the next stage of the journeyDouglas Curran-Everett1 March 2014 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 38, No. 1Axons are injured by antigen-specific CD8+ T cells through a MHC class I- and granzyme B-dependent mechanismNeurobiology of Disease, Vol. 59Consequences of Common Data Analysis Inaccuracies in CNS Trauma Injury Basic ResearchJournal of Neurotrauma, Vol. 30, No. 10Effect of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Containing Bioactive Glass on the Flexural Strength and Morphology of Demineralized DentinOperative Dentistry, Vol. 38, No. 2Hippocampal protection in mice with an attenuated inflammatory monocyte response to acute CNS picornavirus infection30 July 2012 | Scientific Reports, Vol. 2, No. 1Chotosan ameliorates cognitive and emotional deficits in an animal model of type 2 diabetes: possible involvement of cholinergic and VEGF/PDGF mechanisms in the brain20 October 2012 | BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 12, No. 1Explorations in statistics: regressionDouglas Curran-Everett1 December 2011 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 35, No. 4The fusimotor and reafferent origin of the sense of force and weight29 June 2011 | The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 589, No. 13Show the data, don't conceal themGordon B. Drummond, andSarah L. Vowler1 June 2011 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 35, No. 2Statistics: all together now, one step at a timeGordon B. Drummond, David J. Paterson, P. McLoughlin, andJohn C. McGrath1 June 2011 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 35, No. 2Statistics: all together now, one step at a time18 April 2011 | British Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 105, No. 9Show the data, don't conceal them*28 April 2011 | Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, Vol. 38, No. 5Show the data, don't conceal them18 April 2011 | British Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 163, No. 2Statistics: all together now, one step at a time18 April 2011 | British Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 163, No. 2Statistics: All Together Now, One Step at a Time26 April 2011 | Microcirculation, Vol. 18, No. 4Show the Data, Don't Conceal Them26 April 2011 | Microcirculation, Vol. 18, No. 4Show the data, don't conceal them14 April 2011 | Experimental Physiology, Vol. 96, No. 5Statistics: all together now, one step at a time14 April 2011 | Experimental Physiology, Vol. 96, No. 5Show the data, don't conceal them14 April 2011 | The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 589, No. 8Statistics: all together now, one step at a time14 April 2011 | The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 589, No. 8Reporting statistical results2 March 2011 | Journal of Fish Biology, Vol. 78, No. 3Vitamin C Consumption Does Not Impair Training-Induced Improvements in Exercise PerformanceInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Vol. 6, No. 1Chotosan (Diaoteng San)-induced improvement of cognitive deficits in senescence-accelerated mouse (SAMP8) involves the amelioration of angiogenic/neurotrophic factors and neuroplasticity systems in the brainChinese Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 1The null hypothesis significance test in health sciences research (1995-2006): statistical analysis and interpretation19 May 2010 | BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 10, No. 1Serum vascular endothelial growth factor is related to systemic oxidative stress in patients with lung cancerLung Cancer, Vol. 65, No. 2Lung mechanics are both dose and tidal volume dependant in LPS-induced lung injuryRespiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Vol. 167, No. 3Wanted: guidelines for reporting correlationsBartholomew Kay1 June 2009 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 33, No. 2Sudden Drop in Ground Support Produces Force-Related Unload Response in Human Overground WalkingRichard af Klint, Jens Bo Nielsen, Thomas Sinkjaer, andMichael J. Grey1 April 2009 | Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 101, No. 4Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?James P. Morton1 March 2009 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 33, No. 1Statistics, authors, and reviewers: the heart of the matterDouglas Curran-Everett, andDale J. Benos1 March 2009 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 33, No. 1The ongoing discussion regarding standard deviation and standard errorBartholomew Kay1 December 2008 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 32, No. 4Reply to B. KayDouglas Curran-Everett, andDale J. Benos1 December 2008 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 32, No. 4THE PRESENTATION OF STATISTICS IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGYClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, Vol. 35, No. 10RESPONSE TO 'THE PRESENTATION OF STATISTICS IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY 'Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, Vol. 35, No. 10Explorations in statistics: standard deviations and standard errorsDouglas Curran-Everett1 September 2008 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 32, No. 3Interpretation of Red Blood Cell ValuesMortimer Lorber1 June 2008 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 32, No. 2Studying reliability using identical handheld lactate analyzersMark T. Stewart, andStasinos Stavrianeas1 June 2008 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 32, No. 2Last Word on Perspectives "Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel"Douglas Curran-Everett, andDale J. Benos1 December 2007 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 31, No. 4Update on statistics guidelines for American Physiological Society journalsDee U. Silverthorn1 December 2007 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 31, No. 4The Quantitative Effect of Students Using Podcasts in a First Year Undergraduate Exercise Physiology Module14 December 2015 | Bioscience Education, Vol. 10, No. 1 More from this issue > Volume 31Issue 4December 2007Pages 295-298 Copyright & Permissions© 2007 American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00022.2007PubMed18057394History Published online 1 December 2007 Published in print 1 December 2007 Metrics
Referência(s)