Learn statistics the way researchers use it
Short, practical lessons that help you choose the right test, understand your results, and move from dataset to publication-ready analysis.
From question to result
- 1
Build your research question
Start with study design
- 2
Understand your variables
Classify and prepare data
- 3
Choose the right analysis
Match method to question
- 4
Interpret the results
Read statistical output
- 5
Report with confidence
Present data publication-ready
Fundamentals
0/8Core concepts every researcher needs before running any analysis.
Hypothesis Testing
0/4Understand p-values, statistical power, and how to design a valid test.
Core Statistical Tests
0/5The tests used in 80% of research papers — comparison and association.
Regression & Prediction
0/5Model relationships between variables and predict outcomes.
Clinical Methods
0/6Specialized methods for medical research, clinical trials, and diagnostics.
Reporting Guidelines
0/4STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA — how to report your study correctly for publication.
Machine Learning for Researchers
0/3Practical ML concepts — train/test split, SHAP, and avoiding common mistakes in medical AI.
Time Series & Trend
0/2Prepare time variables, interpret trends, and understand seasonal patterns in longitudinal data.
Research & Statistics Updates
Curated from trusted sources — BMJ, Lancet, Cochrane, EQUATOR
ASA Statement: What p-values can and cannot tell you
The American Statistical Association's foundational statement clarifying that p < 0.05 does not mean the null hypothesis is false, the effect is large, or the result will replicate. Required reading for anyone reporting significance.
The American Statistician, ASA (2016)
25 Common misinterpretations of p-values and confidence intervals
Greenland et al. catalogue and correct 25 widespread misconceptions about statistical inference, covering p-values, confidence intervals, and power — with plain-language corrections for each.
European Journal of Epidemiology (2016)
Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological studies
Sterne et al. provide practical guidance on when and how to use multiple imputation, covering the MAR assumption, the number of imputations needed, and how to pool results from imputed datasets.
BMJ (2009)
STROBE Statement: Strengthening the reporting of observational studies
The original STROBE publication explaining the rationale for the 22-item checklist for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, with examples of well-reported and poorly-reported items.
PLOS Medicine / BMJ / Lancet (2007)
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Reporting randomised trials
The updated CONSORT 2010 checklist and flow diagram for transparent reporting of RCTs. Endorsed by over 600 journals. Key updates include separate items for allocation concealment and implementation of randomization.
BMJ / Lancet (2010)
PRISMA 2020: Updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews
The PRISMA 2020 update expands from 27 to richer guidance, adds a new flow diagram separating database searches from other sources, and adds items on protocol registration, certainty of evidence, and methods for evidence synthesis.
BMJ (2021)
Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models in clinical research
Collins and Moons outline the minimum standards for reporting clinical prediction models that use AI or ML, including requirements for validation, calibration, and feature importance reporting.
The Lancet (2019)
TRIPOD Statement: Transparent reporting of prediction models
TRIPOD is the reporting guideline for clinical prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis — covering both regression-based and machine learning approaches. Essential for any study building or validating a prediction score.
Annals of Internal Medicine (2015)
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2)
RoB 2 is the revised Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. It evaluates five domains: randomization, deviations from protocol, missing outcome data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of reported results.
Cochrane / BMJ (2019)
GRADE: Grading the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews
The GRADE framework rates evidence certainty as high, moderate, low, or very low based on study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Now standard in WHO and Cochrane guidelines.
BMJ GRADE Working Group (2004–2013)
EQUATOR Network: The complete library of reporting guidelines
EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) hosts over 500 reporting guidelines organized by study design. The essential starting point for any researcher unsure which guideline applies to their study.
EQUATOR Network
ICH E9(R1): Estimands — a new framework for clinical trial analysis
The ICH E9(R1) addendum introduced the estimand framework — a systematic approach to defining exactly what treatment effect a clinical trial is designed to estimate, handling intercurrent events such as death or treatment switches.
ICH Harmonised Guideline (2019)
BMJ Statistics Notes: Practical guides for clinicians
The BMJ Statistics Notes series covers practical statistical concepts in brief, accessible articles — covering topics from correlation vs regression to survival analysis, confidence intervals, and sample size. Free to access.
BMJ Statistics Notes (ongoing)
NEJM Evidence: Methods articles for clinician-researchers
NEJM Evidence publishes accessible methods articles covering study design, analysis, and reporting for clinicians who need to appraise and conduct research but are not professional statisticians.
NEJM Evidence
JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods: 100+ concepts explained
JAMA's ongoing series explains statistical and methodological concepts used in published research — from propensity scores to instrumental variables — written for readers of clinical journals, not statisticians.
JAMA (ongoing)
WHO Handbook for Guideline Development
The WHO Handbook provides the framework for developing evidence-based clinical guidelines, including systematic reviews, GRADE evidence profiles, and how to move from evidence to recommendations.
World Health Organization (2022)
A tutorial on landmark analysis in survival studies
Landmark analysis is a key technique to avoid immortal time bias in survival studies where a time-varying treatment is analyzed as a baseline characteristic. This tutorial explains the bias and the landmark solution.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (2007)
NCI Joinpoint Trend Analysis: Measuring annual percent change in rates
Joinpoint regression identifies when a trend changes direction and reports the Annual Percent Change (APC) per segment. The NCI Joinpoint software is free and widely used in epidemiology and public health publications.
National Cancer Institute
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
The definitive reference for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Chapters cover everything from framing review questions to meta-analysis methods, heterogeneity, and GRADE evidence assessment. Freely available online.
Cochrane (2019)
NICE real-world evidence framework for health technology assessment
NICE published guidance on when and how to use real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment — covering data sources, study designs, and analytical approaches appropriate for supporting regulatory and reimbursement decisions.
NICE (2022)
Trusted educational sources
Lessons are supported by medical statistics resources, university teaching materials, and reporting guidelines including BMJ Statistics at Square One, UCLA IDRE, STROBE, and EQUATOR.
Ready to apply what you learned?
Open VibeResearch Analyze and let the AI assistant help you choose the right test for your dataset.