Terminal digit preference

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
  • Benford's law

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. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  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.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.