Bioinformation. 2026 Jan 31;22(1):593-598. doi: 10.6026/973206300220593. eCollection 2026.
ABSTRACT
The validity of clinical research depends on robust statistical methodology, yet peer review often fails to identify analytical flaws, particularly in Prosthodontics where statistical errors can mislead evidence-based practice. Therefore, it is of interest to audits the statistical rigor of available data on this issue. Hence, 328 publications were systematically analysed. Our analysis shows that about one-third demonstrated rigorous, assumption-validated analyses, while nearly half showed ambiguous or inappropriate usage. Common issues included lack of assumption checks, inadequate adjustment for multiple comparisons, and missing sample size justifications. Thus, we show the urgent need for improved editorial standards, mandatory reporting checklists, and dedicated statistical review to ensure transparency and research integrity.
PMID:41960457 | PMC:PMC13058335 | DOI:10.6026/973206300220593
