Aplicación de métodos bioestadísticos en investigaciones en ciencias de la salud: revisión de alcance de literatura científica y metodológica clásica y contemporánea.

Lissette Beatriz Villavicencio Cedeño; Marieta del Jesús  Azúa Menéndez; Caleb Isaac Chilán Santana; Yoiler Batista Garcet

doi:10.6018/edumed.713471

Authors

Lissette Beatriz Villavicencio Cedeño UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE TUMBES https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8475-3947
Marieta del Jesús Azúa Menéndez Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, docente de la carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Jipijapa. Manabí, Ecuador.
Caleb Isaac Chilán Santana Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, docente de la carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Jipijapa. Manabí, Ecuador. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2832-8759
Yoiler Batista Garcet Universidad San Gregorio de Portoviejo, Carrera de Medicina. Manabí, Ecuador. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7851-5763

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.713471

Keywords: bioestadística; ciencias de la salud; inferencia estadística; valor p; revisión de alcance; investigación biomédica; inferencia bayesiana; reproducibilidad.

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the importance of biostatistics in health sciences research, numerous shortcomings persist in the biomedical literature. Objective: To analyze the application of biostatistical methods in health sciences research through a comprehensive, systematic review of recent scientific literature, with an emphasis on inferential foundations, application problems, and contemporary methodological alternatives. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic review was conducted, guided by PRISMA-ScR. The search was primarily performed in Scopus and Web of Science, with supplementary searches in PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Search terms related to biostatistics, statistical methods, medical research, epidemiology, public health, and clinical research were used. 245 records were identified; after removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 32 studies were included. The information was organized into three categories: theoretical foundations of statistical inference, problems and limitations in the application of biostatistical methods, and contemporary methodological approaches. Results: The reviewed studies showed a predominance of the frequentist approach, especially regarding the use of hypothesis tests and the p-value. Recurring errors were identified in the interpretation of statistical significance, inappropriate use of tests, poor reporting of assumptions, inadequate handling of multiple comparisons, limited consideration of confounding variables, and insufficient integration of clinically relevant data. Emerging proposals were also observed, focusing on the use of confidence intervals, effect sizes, multivariate models, Bayesian analyses, metascience, open science practices, and improvements in statistical reporting. Conclusions: Biostatistics remains a crucial element for the quality of health sciences research; however, its practical application presents significant gaps. Overcoming these limitations requires strengthening statistical training, promoting a more critical inferential interpretation, abandoning the exclusive dependence on the p-value, integrating measures of magnitude and precision, improving the transparency of reporting, and fostering complementary analytical approaches oriented towards the reproducibility of evidence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views/Downloads

Abstract
46
pdf (Español (España))
17
pdf
17
xml (Español (España))
0

References

1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991. https://www.routledge.com/Practical-Statistics-for-Medical-Research/Altman/p/book/9780412276309.

2. Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1925. https://archive.org/details/statisticalmetho00fish.

3. Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A. 1933, 231, 289-337. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1933.0009.

4. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The p value fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999, 130(12), 995-1004. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10383371/.

5. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016, 70(2), 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.

6. Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016, 31(4), 337-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3.

7. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond p < 0.05. Am Stat. 2019, 73(sup1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913.

8. Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014, 25(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966.

9. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size - or why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012, 4(3), 279-282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1.

10. Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Buyse M. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: clinical versus statistical significance. Perspect Clin Res. 2015, 6(3), 169-170. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.159943.

11. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

12. Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015, 13(3), e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106.

13. Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013, 14(5), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475.

14. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015, 348(6242), 1422-1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374.

15. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017, 1, 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

16. Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1961. https://archive.org/details/theoryofprobabil00jeff.

17. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med. 1999, 130(12), 1005-1013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10383350/.

18. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013. https://www.routledge.com/Bayesian-Data-Analysis/Gelman-Carlin-Stern-Dunson-Vehtari-Rubin/p/book/9781439840955.

19. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: Wiley; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470092602.

20. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

21. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

22. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

23. Popper KR. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge; 1959. https://www.routledge.com/The-Logic-of-Scientific-Discovery/Popper/p/book/9780415278447.

24. Hacking I. The emergence of probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1975. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817557.

25. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. https://shop.lww.com/Modern-Epidemiology/p/9781451190052.

26. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. 4th ed. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2019. https://www.jblearning.com/catalog/productdetails/9781284116595.

27. Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05). Am Psychol. 1994, 49(12), 997-1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997.

28. Gigerenzer G. Mindless statistics. J Socio Econ. 2004, 33(5), 587-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033.

29. Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence - what's wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001, 322(7280), 226-231. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226.

30. Colquhoun D. An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci. 2014, 1(3), 140216. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140216.

31. Nuzzo R. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014, 506(7487), 150-152. https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a.

32. Streiner DL. Best but oft-forgotten practices: the multiple problems of multiplicity - whether and how to correct for many statistical tests. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015, 102(4), 721-728. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.113548.

33. Feise RJ. Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-8.

34. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 327(8476), 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.

35. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007, 4(10), e297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297.

36. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001, 357(9263), 1191-1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3.

37. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The STROBE statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007, 370(9596), 1453-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X.

38. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

39. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010, 340, c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332.

40. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff A, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.