Type of statistical techniques in rheumatology and internal medicine journals

A comparison of the prevalence and type of statistical analysis used in internal medicine and rheumatology journals was done. Four representative journals of each specialty were selected and twelve original articles were randomly obtained from each journal. The papers were reviewed twice within a three month interval by the same evaluator following published definitions for classification. The rheumatology journals tended to use fewer (80 versus 115) and simpler statistical techniques (X3 = 4.28, DF = 1, p = 0.03; OR, 95% CI = 3.21, 1.05-10.85). There was a statistical difference in the utilization of statistical procedures among journals in the four categories evaluated. Seven statistical techniques were required to have access to 86% of statistical tests used in rheumatology journals (t-tests, contingency tables, descriptive statistics, non-parametric comparisons, anova, multiple regression, and Pearson's correlation). The internal medicine journals required six statistical procedures to have access to 85% of the tests (contingency tables, survival analysis, epidemiologic statistics, t-tests, non-parametric statistics, and anova). Our results could be useful to plan medical education in biostatistics emphasizing the statistical techniques most commonly used in these areas.