Statistics in the Pharmacy Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research in statistical methods is essential for maintenance of high quality of the published literature. OBJECTIVE: To update previous reports of the types and frequencies of statistical terms and procedures in research studies of selected professional pharmacy journals. METHODS: We obtained all research articles published in 2001 in 6 journals: American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy, and Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. Two independent reviewers identified and recorded descriptive and inferential statistical terms/procedures found in the methods, results, and discussion sections of each article. Results were determined by tallying the total number of times, as well as the percentage, that each statistical term or procedure appeared in the articles. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four articles were included. Ninety-eight percent employed descriptive statistics; of these, 28% used only descriptive statistics. The most common descriptive statistical terms were percentage (90%), mean (74%), standard deviation (58%), and range (46%). Sixty-nine percent of the articles used inferential statistics, the most frequent being chi(2) (33%), Student's t-test (26%), Pearson's correlation coefficient r (18%), ANOVA (14%), and logistic regression (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical terms and procedures were found in nearly all of the research articles published in pharmacy journals. Thus, pharmacy education should aim to provide current and future pharmacists with an understanding of the common statistical terms and procedures identified to facilitate the appropriate appraisal and consequential utilization of the information available in research articles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.334 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".