No abstract available.
Checklist

The purpose of this study was to analyze the statistical errors of articles in the Journal of Korean Academy of Periodontology from 1973 to 1999. Of the 662 articles examined, 263 were included which analyzed the data. They were classified into 2 groups with time lapse; group 1: 1973~1989, group 2: 1990~1999. Authors made checklists for analyzing the data and detecting the errors and analyzed them with professional statistician. The results were as follows: 1. Of 263 atricles which applied statistical method, 40(19.3%) was in group 1, 223(49.0%) in group2. 2. In the number of statistical method applied, 170(64.6%) were analyzed with 1 statistical method, 73(27.8%) with 2 methods, 18(6.8%) with 3 methods, and 2(0.8%) with 4 methods 3. The number of statistical methods applied was 14, and they were applied in order of 119 of ANOVA, 72 of Student t-test, 63 of Paired t-test, 36 of CORRELATION, and 21 of Mann-Whitney U test. 4. In 87(33.1%) of 263 articles and in 18 error items, statistical errors were found out. In group I, 9 items (55%) of error were found out, and were in order of 5 of Student t-test instead of Paired t-test, and 4 of unnecessary statistical analysis. In group II, 16 items (29.1%) of error were found out, and were in order of 22 of Student t-test instead of Paired t-test, 7 of no multiple comparison test after ANOVA, 6 of Student t-test instead of ANOVA, 6 of unnecessary statistical analysis, and 5 of ANOVA instead of Paired t-test. In conclusion, the results noted that statistical analyses were increased, but statistical errors were decreased with time. But authors suggest that researchers should refer to standard statistical texts and seek advice from professional statisticians to avoid the statistical errors.
Checklist ; Humans

No abstract available.
Checklist ; Pregnancy

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the moderating effects of stress coping strategies on the relationship between occupational stress of national statistical office workers and mental health. METHODS: Subjects were 133 workers at a regional statistics office. Occupational stress, stress coping strategies, and mental health were examined using the Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS), Ways of Coping Checklist, and The Symptom Check-List-90-R. Stress coping strategies were composed of problem-focused coping, social support coping, emotion-focused coping, and wishful thinking coping. RESULTS: Moderated regression indicated that the social support coping and emotion-focused coping style positively moderated the relationship between occupational stress and mental health in national statistical office workers. The social support coping style positively moderated the relationship between interpersonal conflict (KOSS subscale) and mental health in national statistical office workers. The emotion-focused coping style positively moderated the relationship between job insecurity (KOSS subscale) and mental health in national statistical office workers. The emotion-focused coping style negatively moderated the relationship between job demand (KOSS subscale) and mental health in national statistical office workers. CONCLUSION: The implications of this study included that negative results due to high occupational stress can be varied by use of suitable stress coping strategies.
Checklist ; Mental Health* ; Thinking

It is necessary for medical readers or reviewers to assess critically the methodological and statistical validity of medical articles before accepting their results or conclusion. The authors develope d a validity-assessing checklist of 21 items. Among them 14 items for methodological validity included the followings : clear statement of research hypothesis or specific aims, suitable focus, definition of study population (or subjects), eligibility criteria, exclusion criteria, appropriateness of samples, description of methods in detail, desconclusion of accuracy, description of reliability, presence of control, susceptability bias, performance bias, detection bias, transfer bias. The last 5 items are applicable only to analytic study. And 7 errors to statistical validity : incomplete description of basic data, statistical test performed yet not defined, incomplete description of power or confidence interval, inadequate description of measures of central tendency or dispersion, incorrect analysis, multiplicity on hypothesis testing, unwarranted conclusion. The first 3 items are 'errors of omission', and the other are 'errors of commission'. The authors suggest the checklist be very helpful, but not perfect. Critical mind is needed, which enables someone to distinguish minor errors from major fallacies.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Checklist*

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the effects of resilience on posttraumatic stress symptoms and dissociation and whether depression mediates the relationships between resilience and posttraumatic stress symptoms and dissociation. METHODS: A total of 115 firefighters participated in the study. Data were collected via the Life Events Checklist, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Dissociative Experience Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Structural equation modeling and path analysis were applied to estimate the relationships between resilience, depression, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and dissociation. RESULTS: Greater resilience was associated with lower posttraumatic stress symptoms and dissociation, and the relationship between them was fully mediated by depression. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aspects of depression may help explain the relationships between resilience and posttraumatic stress symptoms and dissociation. Tailored prevention programs and treatments based on resilience and depression may prevent posttraumatic stress symptoms and dissociation in firefighters and improve treatments outcomes among firefighters with posttraumatic stress symptoms and/or dissociation.
Checklist ; Depression* ; Firefighters* ; Humans

No abstract available.
Checklist* ; Fetus* ; Humans ; Mothers*

No abstract available.
Checklist ; Humans ; Infant

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the statistical methods used in the Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine (JKSEM) and to identify the types of errors in statistical analysis. METHODS: We reviewed quantitative articles that were published in the JKSEM from January 1998 through December 2002. Editorials, review articles, and case reports were not included in this analysis. A total of 319 articles was reviewed. We focused on the methods of inferential statistics in these articles. We evaluated the adequacy and the validity of the statistical techniques with our criteria, which were established by modifying Ahn's checklist. RESULTS: Of the 319 articles, 222 used inferential statistics. The t-test was the statistic of choice overall (45.1%), followed by the chi-square test (23.9%). Errors of omission (70.3%) were more frequent than errors of commission. Of the errors of omission, incomplete description of the basic data was the most common. CONCLUSION: We found various mistakes or misuses in the applications of statistical methodologies in the articles published in the JKSEM. The present study suggests that additional efforts should be focused on the appropriateness of the statistical analysis used in JKSEM articles to improve their value, and during the review process, editorial attention should be paid to the validity of the statistical methodologies used in the articles.
Checklist ; Emergencies* ; Emergency Medicine*

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are known to provide the most reliable evidence on intervention. However, RCTs are often conducted and reported incompletely and inadequately, making readers and reviewers unable to judge the validity and reliability of the trials. In this article, we consider the statistical and methodological issues involved in reporting on RCTs, particularly in relation to the objectives, designs, and commencements of trials. This paper deals with the various issues that should be considered in presenting RCTs, and suggests checklists for reporting on them. We expect that these checklists will remind readers and reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically and comprehensively, making those manuscripts more transparent and reliable.
Checklist ; Methods ; Reproducibility of Results