Appointment of statistical editor and quality of statistics in a small medical journal

Aim: To test the if the appointment of a statistical editor improves the qu ality of manuscripts published in a small general medical journal. Methods. Retrospective review of all manuscripts containing statistical dat a published in the Croatian Medical Journal between 1992 and 2000 (n =241). Statistical analysis and its presentation were assessed by a single observ er. Results. Before the appointment of statistical editor in 1996, 97 manuscrip ts with statistical data were published. Statistics was not satisfactory in 52 (54%) of them, including 26 definite errors in analysis and 43 in prese ntation. After the appointment of statistical editor, 144 manuscripts conta ining statistical data were published. Statistics was not satisfactory in 9 1 (63%) of them, with 51 definite errors in analysis and 69 in presentation . Out of 144 manuscripts, the editor-in-chief sent out 30 (21%) for statist ical review. Statistics was not satisfactory in 25 of them, including 11 de finite errors in analysis and 17 in presentation. Statistical editor's comm ents improved three manuscripts. If the authors had acknowledged all statis tical editor's suggestions, 9 more manuscripts would have been improved, St atistical editor had a total of 195 comments on 30 published manuscripts. M ost numerous were the comments concerning the presentation of the statistic al analysis (51%), followed by the general comments (26%), comments on anal ysis (11%), study design (8%), and interpretation (4%). Conclusion. Appointment of a statistical editor is not a guarantee of the i mprovement of statistics in small journals. Other measures are necessary, i ncluding strict editorial policy on statistical review, monitoring of revis ed manuscript versions, and enrollment of formally trained biostatisticians .