Key result
This editorial presents seven common statistical sins in sports injury research to help athletes, coaches, and clinicians avoid drawing flawed conclusions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights common statistical errors in sports injury research to improve methodology and interpretation of causality.
The British Journal of Sports Medicine has introduced a series of editorials and infographics that explain the value of using appropriate methodology in sports injury research. Indeed, proper methodology is necessary for understanding why sports injuries develop, how best to prevent them and which therapeutic interventions will be most effective. Without correctly applying and interpreting statistics, subjective intuitions could lead to incorrect conclusions. In this editorial, we present seven common ‘statistical sins’ made in research and discuss how to present research findings in such a way as to help athletes, coaches and clinicians avoid drawing flawed conclusions when attempting to interpret causality in sports injury research. The sins have been adapted from an article originally published in The Conversation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (2017) conducted an editorial in sports injury. This editorial presents seven common statistical sins in sports injury research to help athletes, coaches, and clinicians avoid drawing flawed conclusions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: