A review of user-friendly freely-available statistical analysis software for medical researchers and biostatisticians

References

• Ali Z, Bhaskar SB. 2016. Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis [published correction appears in Indian J Anaesth. 2016 Oct;60(10): 790]. Indian J Anaesth. 60:662–669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• AlQirem L, Al-Huneidy L, Hammouri M, Taha H, Al-Somadi H, Al-Bitar F, Kitaneh R, Al-Huneidy Y, Al-Somadi H, Ashour O, et al. 2022. Perceived barriers towards the importance and application of medical research: a source of gender disparity among medical undergraduates [published correction appears in BMC Med Educ. 2022 Dec 19;22(1):879]. BMC Med Educ. 22:767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annarita R, Pollice A. 2007. A generalization of the polychoric correlation coefficient. In: Zani S, Cerioli A, Riani M, Vichi M, editors. Data analysis, classification and the forward search. Berlin: Springer. p. 135–142.
   Google Scholar
• Ashour L, Funjan K. 2022. Determining required teaching methods in distance undergraduate medical education based on the non-university learning methods medical students used during Covid-19: an exploratory factor analysis. Curr Health Sci J. 48:398–406.
   Google Scholar
• Awofeso OM, Roberts AA, Okonkwor CO, Nwachukwu CE, Onyeodi I, Lawal IM, Ebrubaoghene O, Osakwe GI, Buchi-Njere O, Solahudeen ZO, et al. 2020. Factors affecting undergraduates’ participation in medical research in Lagos. Niger Med J. 61:156–162.
   Google Scholar
• Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. 2019. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 22:153–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkan H. 2015. Statistics in clinical research: important considerations. Ann Card Anaesth. 18:74–82.
   Google Scholar
• Barker M, Chue Hong NP, Katz DS, Lamprecht A-L, Martinez-Ortiz C, Psomopoulos F, Harrow J, Castro LJ, Gruenpeter M, Martinez PA, et al. 2022. Introducing the FAIR Principles for research software. Sci Data. 9:622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavaliere R. 2015. How to choose the right statistical software?-a method increasing the post-purchase satisfaction. J Thorac Dis. 7:E585–E598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesdachai S, Yetmar ZA, Ranganath N, et al. 2023. Antifungal susceptibility pattern of Candida glabrata from a referral center and reference laboratory: 2012–2022. J Fungi. 9:821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. 2019. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 110:12–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly C, Soobiah C. 2022. Software to conduct a meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2345:223–244.
   Google Scholar
• de Melo MB, Daldegan-Bueno D, Menezes Oliveira MG, de Souza AL. 2022. Beyond ANOVA and MANOVA for repeated measures: advantages of generalized estimated equations and generalized linear mixed models and its use in neuroscience research. Eur J Neurosci. 56:6089–6098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 39:175–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng C, Wang H, Lu N, Chen T, He H, Lu Y, Tu XM. 2014. Log-transformation and its implications for data analysis [published correction appears in Gen Psychiatr. 2019 Sep 6;32(5):e100146corr1]. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 26:105–109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fida T, Zain Ul Abiddin, Yasin F, Mehmood Q. The inclination of undergraduate students at King Edward Medical University towards research and its perceived barriers and facilitators; a cross-sectional study.Ann Med Surg (London). 2022;81:104502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goyal A, Sardana N. 2020. Performance assessment of bug fixing process in open source repositories. Procedia Comput Sci. 167:2070–2079.
   Google Scholar
• Hackenberger BK. 2020. R software: unfriendly but probably the best. Croat Med J. 61:66–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidich AB. 2010. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 14:29–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayat MJ, Powell A, Johnson T, Cadwell BL. 2017. Statistical methods used in the public health literature and implications for training of public health professionals. PLoS One. 12:e0179032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James B. 2014. Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: a demonstration using FACTOR. Pract Assess Res Eval. 19:5.
   Google Scholar
• Jamin A, Abraham P, Humeau-Heurtier A. 2021. Machine learning for predictive data analytics in medicine: a review illustrated by cardiovascular and nuclear medicine examples. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 41:113–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma T, Huo Z, Kuo A, Zhu L, Fang Z, Zeng X, Lin C-W, Liu S, Wang L, Liu P, et al. 2019. MetaOmics: analysis pipeline and browser-based software suite for transcriptomic meta-analysis. Bioinformatics. 35:1597–1599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuadi E, Mohamud M, Almutairi M, Alsunaidi A, Alswayed AK, Aldhafeeri OF. 2021. Trends in the usage of statistical software and their associated study designs in health sciences research: a bibliometric analysis. Cureus. 13:e12639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matzke D, Nieuwenhuis S, van Rijn H, Slagter HA, van der Molen MW, Wagenmakers EJ. 2015. The effect of horizontal eye movements on free recall: a preregistered adversarial collaboration. J Exp Psychol Gen. 144:e1–e15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyr AJ. 2010. A 5-year review of statistical methods presented in The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg. 49:471–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller R. 1997. Survival analysis. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Moss J, Grønneberg S. 2023. Partial identification of latent correlations with ordinal data. Psychometrika. 88:241–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunes CA, Alvarenga VO, de Souza Sant’Ana A, Santos JS, Granato D. 2015. The use of statistical software in food science and technology: advantages, limitations and misuses. Food Res Int. 75:270–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozgur C, Kleckner M, Li Y. 2015. Selection of statistical software for solving big data problems. SAGE Open. 5:215824401558437.
   Google Scholar
• Petch J, Di S, Nelson W. 2022. Opening the black box: the promise and limitations of explainable machine learning in cardiology. Can J Cardiol. 38:204–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redmond AC, Keenan AM. 2002. Understanding statistics. Putting p-values into perspective. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 92:297–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe M. 2019. An introduction to machine learning for clinicians. Acad Med. 94:1433–1436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt RD, Feaster DJ, Horigian VE, Lee RM. 2022. Latent class analysis of loneliness and connectedness in US young adults during COVID-19. J Clin Psychol. 78:1824–1838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt WM, Perera ND, Buadi FK, Hayman SR, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Dingli D, Cook J, Lacy MQ, Kapoor P, et al. 2023. Long-term outcomes of allogeneic stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 13:126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiber JB. 2021. Issues and recommendations for exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 17:1004–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shreffler J, Huecker MR. 2023. Survival analysis. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon J, Raymont V, Braun A, Butman JA, Grafman J. 2007. User-friendly software for the analysis of brain lesions (ABLe). Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 86:245–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa LCDdM, Filho HLAS, Von Glehn CdQC, da Silva AS, Neto PdAdS, de Castro JAF, do Monte SJH. 2011. EpHLA: an innovative and user-friendly software automating the HLAMatchmaker algorithm for antibody analysis. Transpl Immunol. 25:210–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spicer R, Salek RM, Moreno P, Cañueto D, Steinbeck C. 2017. Navigating freely-available software tools for metabolomics analysis. Metabolomics. 13:106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suurmond R, van Rhee H, Hak T. 2017. Introduction, comparison, and validation of meta-essentials: a free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 8:537–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabaja H, Yuen J, Tai DBG, Campioli CC, Chesdachai S, DeSimone DC, Hassan A, Klassen BT, Miller KJ, Lee KH, et al. 2022. Deep brain stimulator device infection: the Mayo Clinic Rochester experience. Open Forum Infect Dis. 10:ofac631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theodorakis E, Antonakis AN, Baltsavia I, Pavlopoulos GA, Samiotaki M, Amoutzias GD, Theodosiou T, Acuto O, Efstathiou G, Iliopoulos I, et al. 2021. ProteoSign v2: a faster and evolved user-friendly online tool for statistical analyses of differential proteomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 49:W573–W577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Zhang L. 2011. Comparison of two academic software packages for analyzing two-dimensional gel images. J Bioinform Comput Biol. 9:775–794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf A, Castell S, Morawietz L, Karch A. 2016. Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data - which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC Med Res Methodol. 16:93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Zhang R, Zhong Y, Wang J, Weng Z, Luo H, Chen C. 2022. Statistical analysis and machine learning prediction of disease outcomes for COVID-19 and pneumonia patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 12:838749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar