In this second of a two-part article, we describe some of the common statistical pitfalls encountered in hand surgery research. These include dichotomania, the ‘Table 2 fallacy’, p-hacking, regression to the mean, overfitting and unaccounted data clustering. We explain the impact of these pitfalls on hand surgery research and describe techniques to avoid them. The aim of this two-part article was to provide a starting point for hand surgeons to refer to when conducting or analysing research and provide resources and references for interested readers to explore.
CollinsGSReitsmaJBAltmanDGMoonsKG.Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015,
162: 55–63.
HarrisonCClellandADDavisTRCet al.
A comparative analysis of multidimensional computerized adaptive testing for the DASH and QuickDASH scores in Dupuytren’s disease. J Hand Surg Eur. 2022,
47: 750–4.
9.
HooperGTangJBWetherellRG.Clarity and brevity: writing an article for this journal. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017,
42: 231–9.
10.
KamranRRodriguesJNDobbsTDWormaldJCRTrickettRWHarrisonCJ.Computerized adaptive testing of symptom severity: a registry-based study of 924 patients with trapeziometacarpal arthritis. J Hand Surg Eur. 2022,
47: 893–8.
11.
KeefeFJLefebvreJCEgertJRAffleckGSullivanMJCaldwellDS.The relationship of gender to pain, pain behavior, and disability in osteoarthritis patients: the role of catastrophizing. Pain. 2000,
873: 325–34.
12.
LangTAAltmanDG.Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the “statistical analyses and methods in the published literature” or the SAMPL Guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015,
52: 5–9.
13.
RosalesRSAtroshiI.Clinical research in hand surgery: handling confounding and effect modification. J Hand Surg Eur. 2023,
48: 681–6.
14.
SauerlandSLeferingRBayer-SandowTBrüserPNeugebauerEA.Fingers, hands or patients? The concept of independent observations. J Hand Surg Br. 2003,
28: 102–5.
15.
SmithGDEbrahimS.Data dredging, bias, or confounding. BMJ. 2002,
325: 1437–8.
16.
StuntJJBroekstraDCde BoerMR.Statistics in publishing: the (mis)use of the p-value (Part 2). J Hand Surg Eur. 2022,
47: 1092–5.
17.
TextorJvan der ZanderBGilthorpeMLiśkiewiczMEllisonG.Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘DAGitty’. Intl J Epidemiol. 2016,
45: 1887–94.
18.
van SmedenM.A very short list of common pitfalls in research design, data analysis, and reporting. PRiMER. 2022,
6: 26.
19.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerMPocockSJGøtzschePCVandenbrouckeJP.STROBE initiative.
The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014,
12: 1495–9.
20.
WestreichDGreenlandS.The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol. 2013,
177: 292–8.
21.
WolffRFMoonsKGMRileyRDet al. PROBAST Group.
PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019,
170: 51–8.
