Search

The lack of consistent presentation of results in published studies on the association between a quantitative explanatory variable and a quantitative dependent variable has been a long-term issue in evaluating the reported findings. Studies are analyzed and reported in a variety of ways. The main purpose of this review is to illustrate the procedures in summarizing and synthesizing research results from multivariate models with a quantitative outcome variable. The review summarizes the application of the standardized regression coefficient as an effect size index in the context of meta-analysis and describe how it can be estimated and converted from data presented in original research articles. An example of synthesis is provided using research articles on the association between childhood body mass index and carotid intima-media thickness in adult life. Finally, the paper shares practical recommendations for meta-analysts wanting to use the standardized regression coefficient in pooling findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in 'predatory dental journals' and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in 'predatory open access (OA) journals' and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]