A Review of Statistical Reporting in Dietetics Research (2010–2019): How is a Canadian Journal Doing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of statistical techniques in quantitative research, methodological flaws and inadequate statistical reporting persist. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of statistical reporting and procedures in all original, quantitative articles published in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research (CJDPR) from 2010 to 2019 using a checklist created by our research team. In total, 107 articles were independently evaluated by 2 raters. The hypothesis or objective(s) was clearly stated in 97.2% of the studies. Over half (51.4%) of the articles reported the study design and 57.9% adequately described the statistical techniques used. Only 21.2% of the studies that required a prestudy sample size calculation reported one. Of the 281 statistical tests conducted, 88.3% of them were correct. P values >0.05–0.10 were reported as “statistically significant” and/or a “trend” in 11.4% of studies. While this evaluation reveals both strengths and areas for improvement in the quality of statistical reporting in CJDPR, we encourage dietitians to pursue additional statistical training and/or seek the assistance of a statistician. Future research should consider validating this new checklist and using it to evaluate the statistical quality of studies published in other nutrition journals and disciplines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.548 | 0.742 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".