Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeWrong calculation; Possibility of Publication and research bias, and unclearity
Posted by tshekhor on 23 May 2015 at 12:23 GMT
Figure 1 says in last, n = 33 derived from n = 29 while 1 study had 4 independent studies.
Then the calculation should be.
Number of single studies = 29- 1 (as 1 had 4 independent studies) = 28
& Number of extracted studies from that 1 is equal to = 4
So, Total studies should be 28+4 = 32
Simply think, basic mathematics.....
very silly mistake, but challenges the authenticity of work
RE: Wrong calculation; Possibility of Publication and research bias, and unclearity
wanglie replied to tshekhor on 23 May 2015 at 15:08 GMT
Dear college, thank you for your concern. The point is that, due to my careless, I forgot to add a sentence "one study contains both HBsAg and occult infection" to figure 1, so that I deem this study as two indepent studies. Therefore 29+(4-1)+1=33. I only add this explanation in the part of "results", which is a mistake indeed, however not silly anyway. Also you can check figure 3 and figure 4, the total number of studies in the two figures is 33(22 in figure 3 and 11 in figure 4). Several days later I would contact the editors to upload a renewed figure 1. Any further doubt, contact me at any time.
Yours Lie Wang of China Medical University