Three brief pieces of statistical advice for medical peer reviewers.

Clicks: 406
ID: 50875
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #6 of 7 articles by views in european journal of clinical investigation

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The scientific peer review of medical research papers often entails the assessment of statistical results. Medical reviewers may sometimes feel overburdened by a task for which they are usually not specifically trained for. We offer three pieces of non-technical statistical advice.
Reference Key
heinzl2019threeeuropean Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal european journal of clinical investigation
Year 2019
DOI
10.1111/eci.13171
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.