Terminal digit preference, terminal digit bias, or end-digit preference is a commonly-observed statistical phenomenon whereby humans recording numbers have a bias or preference for a specific final digit in a number. In medical science, this is often seen when recording measurements such as blood pressure by hand, where those taking measurements will round to the nearest 5 or 0.[1] The phenomenon has been blamed for misdiagnoses.[2] Terminal digit bias has been used to identify errors in research,[3][4][5][6] and is one method used in the identification of scientific fraud.[7] Severe terminal digit bias has been found in datasets for scientific papers that were later retracted [8][9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Thavarajah (1 December 2003). "Terminal digit bias in a specialty hypertension faculty practice". Nature. 17 (12): 819–822. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001625. PMID 14704725.
  2. ^ Nietert, Paul J.; Wessell, Andrea; Feifer, Chris; Ornstein, Steven (2006). "Effect of Terminal Digit Preference on Blood Pressure Measurement and Treatment in Primary Care". American Journal of Hypertension. 19 (2): 147–152. doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.08.016. PMID 16448884. S2CID 25597886.
  3. ^ Thavarajah (1 December 2003). "Terminal digit bias in a specialty hypertension faculty practice". Nature. 17 (12): 819–822. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001625. PMID 14704725.
  4. ^ Hla, Khin (1986). "Observer Error in Systolic Blood Pressure Measurement in the Elderly". Arch Intern Med. 146 (12): 2373. doi:10.1001/archinte.1986.00360240099017. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  5. ^ Hayes (2008). "Terminal digit preference occurs in pathology reporting irrespective of patient management implication". Journal of Clinical Pathology. 61 (9): 1071–1072. doi:10.1136/jcp.2008.059543. PMID 18755731. S2CID 10737432. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  6. ^ Lusignan (23 March 2004). "End-digit preference in blood pressure recordings of patients with ischaemic heart disease in primary care". Nature. 18 (4): 261–265. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001663. PMID 15037875. S2CID 430764. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
  7. ^ Lawrence, Jack (22 September 2021). "The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable". Nature. 27 (11): 1853–1854. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01535-y. PMID 34552263.
  8. ^ Brown, Nick. "Dr". More problematic articles from the Food and Brand Lab. Nick Brown. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  9. ^ Retraction Watch (19 September 2018). "JAMA journals retract six papers by food marketing researcher Brian Wansink". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 30 November 2021.


Categories