The prevalence of misreporting and misinterpreting correlation coefficients in biomedical literature

Correlation coefficient is widely used in biomedical and biological literature. Yet, its frequent misuse and misinterpretation undermine the credibility and reproducibility of the scientific findings. In this perspective, we systematically reviewed 1327 records of correlation analyses across 310 articles published in Science, Nature, and Nature Neuroscience in 2022. Our analysis revealed a troubling pattern of poor statistical reporting and inferring: 58.71% (95% confidence interval (CI): [53.23%, 64.19%], 182/310) of studies did not explicitly report sample sizes, and 98.06% (95% CI: [95.84%, 99.11%], 304/310) failed to provide confidence intervals for correlation coefficients. Among 177 articles interpreting correlation strength, 45.76% (95% CI: [38.42%, 53.10%], 81/177) relied solely on point estimates, while 54.24% (95% CI: [46.90%, 61.58%], 96/177) drew conclusions based on null hypothesis significance testing. These widespread omissions and the resulting potentially misleading inferences point to systematic shortcomings in both statistical literacy and editorial standards. We advocate clear reporting guidelines mandating effect sizes and confidence intervals in correlation analyses to enhance the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of quantitative life sciences research.