Add files via upload

tables/Table1.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+% latex table generated in R 4.3.3 by xtable 1.8-4 package
+% Sun May 26 19:04:15 2024
+\begin{table}[H]
+\begin{widestuff}
+\caption{Observed prevalence and 95\% confidence interval for reported statistical behaviours.} 
+\begin{flushleft}  \begin{tabular}{p{9cm}lll} 
+  \toprule
+{\bf Variables} & {\bf N} & {\bf n (\%) } & {\bf 95\% CI} \\ 
+  \midrule
+Coefficients & 95 & 77 (81\%) & 72\%, 88\% \\ 
+  Confidence intervals & 95 & 44 (46\%) & 37\%, 56\% \\ 
+  Standard error & 95 & 19 (20\%) & 13\%, 29\% \\ 
+  \ $R^2$ & 95 & 38 (40\%) & 31\%, 50\% \\ 
+  F/t statistics & 95 & 16 (17\%) & 11\%, 26\% \\ 
+  Degrees of freedom & 95 & 8 (8\%) &  4\%, 16\% \\ 
+  Number of observations in models & 95 & 45 (47\%) & 38\%, 57\% \\ 
+  Has the direction of the parameter estimates been interpreted? & 95 & 63 (66\%) & 56\%, 75\% \\ 
+  Has the size of the parameter estimates been interpreted? & 95 & 22 (23\%) & 16\%, 33\% \\ 
+  Have p-values been reported? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  No &  & 8 (8\%) &  4\%, 16\% \\ 
+  Mostly reported categorically &  & 17 (18\%) & 11\%, 27\% \\ 
+  Mostly reported continuously &  & 70 (74\%) & 64\%, 81\% \\ 
+  Have authors discussed the scientific importance of parameter estimates? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  No &  & 66 (69\%) & 60\%, 78\% \\ 
+  Yes, but only in a generic way &  & 18 (19\%) & 12\%, 28\% \\ 
+  Yes, linked size of effect back to outcome variable &  & 11 (12\%) &  7\%, 20\% \\ 
+  Was collinearity of X variables in models evaluated? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  Not required &  & 22 (23\%) & 16\%, 33\% \\ 
+  No &  & 60 (63\%) & 53\%, 72\% \\ 
+  Yes &  & 13 (14\%) &  8\%, 22\% \\ 
+  Were any continuous variables transformed not including categorisation? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  No &  & 65 (68\%) & 59\%, 77\% \\ 
+  Yes, but did not describe reasoning for transformation &  & 13 (14\%) &  8\%, 22\% \\ 
+  Yes, described reasoning for transformation &  & 17 (18\%) & 11\%, 27\% \\ 
+  Were continuous variables on a very large or small scales in the model scaled appropriately? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  Not required &  & 50 (53\%) & 43\%, 62\% \\ 
+  Unclear &  & 9 (9\%) &  5\%, 17\% \\ 
+  No &  & 5 (5\%) &  2\%, 12\% \\ 
+  Yes &  & 31 (33\%) & 24\%, 43\% \\ 
+   \bottomrule
+\end{tabular} \end{flushleft} \begin{flushleft} N = Number of papers; n (\%) = Prevalence;  95\% CI  =	Wilson 95\% confidence intervals. \end{flushleft}
+\end{widestuff}
+\end{table}
+

tables/Table2.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+% latex table generated in R 4.3.3 by xtable 1.8-4 package
+% Sun May 26 19:04:15 2024
+\begin{table}[H]
+\begin{widestuff}
+\caption{Observed prevalence and 95\% confidence interval model selection and reporting.} 
+\begin{flushleft}  \begin{tabular}{p{9cm}lll} 
+  \toprule
+{\bf Variables} & {\bf N} & {\bf n (\%) } & {\bf 95\% CI} \\ 
+  \midrule
+Is there any process for selecting the variables included in the final model? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  Unclear &  & 19 (20\%) & 13\%, 29\% \\ 
+  Univariate modeling only (one X variable) &  & 22 (23\%) & 16\%, 33\% \\ 
+  Model based on reference literature or author knowledge &  & 36 (38\%) & 29\%, 48\% \\ 
+  Significant variables from univariate analysis were included in a multivariable model &  & 3 (3\%) &  1\%,  9\% \\ 
+  Used recognised statistical modeling strategy &  & 13 (14\%) &  8\%, 22\% \\ 
+  Other &  & 2 (2\%) &  1\%,  7\% \\ 
+  Which variable selection strategy was used? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  No recognised modeling strategy &  & 82 (86\%) & 78\%, 92\% \\ 
+  Forwards &  & 2 (2\%) &  1\%,  7\% \\ 
+  Backwards &  & 4 (4\%) &  2\%, 10\% \\ 
+  Stepwise &  & 7 (7\%) &  4\%, 14\% \\ 
+  Information criterion &  & 0 (0\%) &  0\%,  4\% \\ 
+  Regularisation methods &  & 0 (0\%) &  0\%,  4\% \\ 
+  Other &  & 0 (0\%) &  0\%,  4\% \\ 
+  Does the paper mention any statistical significance criteria for including variables? & 95 &  &  \\ 
+  No recognised modeling strategy &  & 82 (86\%) & 78\%, 92\% \\ 
+  No &  & 7 (7\%) &  4\%, 14\% \\ 
+  Yes &  & 6 (6\%) &  3\%, 13\% \\ 
+   \bottomrule
+\end{tabular} \end{flushleft} \begin{flushleft} N = Number of papers; n (\%) = Prevalence;  95\% CI  =	Wilson 95\% confidence intervals. \end{flushleft}
+\end{widestuff}
+\end{table}
+

tables/Table3.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+% latex table generated in R 4.3.3 by xtable 1.8-4 package
+% Sun May 26 19:04:16 2024
+\begin{table}[H]
+\begin{widestuff}
+\caption{ Agreement and reliability of statistical raters for 95 papers.} 
+\begin{flushleft}  \begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
+  \toprule & \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Rating 1 vs Rating 2}} & \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Rating 1 vs Prevalence}} & \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Rating 2 vs Prevalence}} \\
+\cline{2-10}
+{\bf Variable} & {\bf Agree} & {\bf Gwet} & {\bf 95\% CI} & {\bf Agree} & {\bf Gwet} & {\bf 95\% CI} & {\bf Agree} & {\bf Gwet} & {\bf 95\% CI} \\ 
+  \midrule
+Degrees of freedom & 92\% & 0.91 & 0.84, 0.98 & 96\% & 0.95 & 0.90, 1.00 & 92\% & 0.90 & 0.84, 0.97 \\ 
+  Variable selection strategy & 92\% & 0.91 & 0.85, 0.97 & 94\% & 0.93 & 0.88, 0.99 & 89\% & 0.89 & 0.82, 0.96 \\ 
+  Model significance criteria & 91\% & 0.90 & 0.83, 0.97 & 92\% & 0.91 & 0.84, 0.97 & 91\% & 0.90 & 0.83, 0.96 \\ 
+  F/t statistics & 87\% & 0.82 & 0.72, 0.93 & 92\% & 0.89 & 0.80, 0.97 & 89\% & 0.85 & 0.75, 0.95 \\ 
+  Standard error & 86\% & 0.79 & 0.66, 0.91 & 92\% & 0.88 & 0.79, 0.96 & 91\% & 0.85 & 0.75, 0.95 \\ 
+  Coefficient & 85\% & 0.78 & 0.66, 0.90 & 94\% & 0.91 & 0.83, 0.98 & 92\% & 0.87 & 0.78, 0.96 \\ 
+  Confidence intervals & 85\% & 0.71 & 0.56, 0.85 & 88\% & 0.77 & 0.64, 0.90 & 88\% & 0.77 & 0.64, 0.90 \\ 
+  R-Squared & 82\% & 0.65 & 0.50, 0.81 & 89\% & 0.79 & 0.67, 0.92 & 84\% & 0.70 & 0.55, 0.84 \\ 
+  p-values & 75\% & 0.67 & 0.54, 0.79 & 86\% & 0.82 & 0.73, 0.92 & 83\% & 0.78 & 0.68, 0.89 \\ 
+  Direction interpreted & 72\% & 0.44 & 0.26, 0.63 & 80\% & 0.63 & 0.47, 0.79 & 77\% & 0.55 & 0.38, 0.72 \\ 
+  variables transformed & 69\% & 0.61 & 0.48, 0.75 & 78\% & 0.72 & 0.60, 0.83 & 78\% & 0.71 & 0.59, 0.83 \\ 
+  Size interpreted & 65\% & 0.43 & 0.23, 0.62 & 76\% & 0.62 & 0.46, 0.78 & 73\% & 0.55 & 0.38, 0.73 \\ 
+  Collinearity evaluated & 61\% & 0.45 & 0.30, 0.59 & 77\% & 0.68 & 0.56, 0.80 & 72\% & 0.60 & 0.47, 0.74 \\ 
+  N in models & 57\% & 0.16 & -0.05, 0.37 & 74\% & 0.49 & 0.31, 0.67 & 71\% & 0.41 & 0.22, 0.60 \\ 
+  Importance of parameters & 48\% & 0.27 & 0.11, 0.42 & 66\% & 0.54 & 0.40, 0.69 & 58\% & 0.42 & 0.27, 0.57 \\ 
+  Scaled appropriately & 40\% & 0.24 & 0.11, 0.38 & 52\% & 0.39 & 0.25, 0.53 & 46\% & 0.32 & 0.18, 0.45 \\ 
+  Process variable selection & 37\% & 0.25 & 0.13, 0.36 & 59\% & 0.51 & 0.39, 0.63 & 48\% & 0.39 & 0.26, 0.51 \\ 
+   \bottomrule
+\end{tabular} \end{flushleft} \begin{flushleft}  Agree = Observed agreement, Gwet = Gwet agreement coefficient; 95\% CI = Gwet 95\% confidence intervals. \end{flushleft}
+\end{widestuff}
+\end{table}
+

tables/Table4.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+% latex table generated in R 4.3.3 by xtable 1.8-4 package
+% Sun May 26 19:04:16 2024
+\begin{table}[ht]
+\begin{widestuff}
+\caption{Social Ecological Model a system-wide approach to reform statistical practices adapted from Bronfenbrenner [66]} 
+\begin{tabular}{p{5cm}p{13cm}}
+  \toprule
+{\bf Level} & {\bf Description} \\ 
+  \midrule
+Individual & - Individual characteristics that influence behaviour change, including knowledge, statistical literacy, beliefs, attitudes, and personal traits such as gender, years of experience and job security. \\ 
+  Interpersonal & - Formal and informal social networks and support systems that can influence individual behaviours to promote interpersonal growth that encourages good statistical practice including peers and co-workers, and mentors. \\ 
+  Community & - Formal or informal social norms can limit or encourage good statistical and research behaviours among individuals, groups, or organisations. 
+ \\ 
+  Organisational & - Organisations rules and regulations for operations, for example, ethics committees in hospitals or universities.
+
+	- Access to research infrastructure, including statistical resources such as statistical programs and educational resources. 
+
+	- Access to qualified statisticians. 
+
+	- Sustainable research metrics with quality valued over quantity. 
+
+ -	Organisational oversite of research misconduct. \\ 
+  Policy Environment & - Local, state, national and global policies regarding the allocation of resources for meta-research to tackle systematic issues. 
+
+ - Regulatory bodies, state, national and international integrity commissions, for the oversite of research misconduct. \\ 
+   \bottomrule
+\end{tabular}
+\end{widestuff}
+\end{table}
+