During my experience as an author, peer reviewer, and editor during COVID-19, I have encountered - and committed - various errors related to the interpretation and use of statistical measures and tests. Primarily concerning health sciences such as epidemiology, infodemiology, and public health, the evidence used to inform a conclusion carries an extremely high weight as it translates into decisions made to preserve the population\'s well-being. Therefore, the aforementioned evidence must be reliable. This short guide discusses the most common and dangerous mistakes I have experienced during my scientific journey. Real and invented examples have been proposed and analyzed in detail, showing possible interpretations, both correct and incorrect, and their consequences. Such a framework makes it clear that a statistical test alone cannot answer any scientific questions. Indeed, the interpretation of results and the verification of assumptions and test eligibility - subject to the author\'s evaluation - are crucial components of the integrity of the scientific investigation. Before using a test or adopting a measure, we must ask ourselves the following fundamental questions: Are there valid reasons to explore my research question? Am I sure my approach can fully and adequately answer my research question? Am I sure that my model\'s assumptions - basic and hidden - are sufficiently satisfied? How could violating those assumptions affect the validity of the results and stakeholders? Is the effect size relevant regardless of statistical significance?

Congenital talipes equinovarus is one of the most prevalent birth defects, affecting approximately 0.6 to 1.5 children per 1000 live births. Currently, the Ponseti method is the gold-standard treatment for idiopathic clubfeet, with good results reported globally. This literature review focuses on common errors encountered during different stages of the management of idiopathic clubfeet, namely diagnosis, manipulation, serial casting, Achilles tenotomy, and bracing. The purpose is to update clinicians and provide broad guidelines that can be followed to avoid and manage these errors to optimize short- and long-term outcomes of treatment of idiopathic clubfeet using the Ponseti method. A literature search was performed using the following keywords: \"Idiopathic Clubfoot\" (All Fields) AND \"Management\" OR \"Outcomes\" (All Fields). Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS (age range: 0-12 months). A full-text review of these articles was then performed looking for \"complications\" or \"errors\" reported during the treatment process. A total of 61 articles were included in the final review: 28 from PubMed, 8 from EMBASE, 17 from Google Scholar, 2 from Cochrane Library, and 6 from SCOPUS. We then grouped the errors encountered during the treatment process under the different stages of the treatment protocol (diagnosis, manipulation and casting, tenotomy, and bracing) to facilitate discussion and highlight solutions. While the Ponseti method is currently the gold standard in clubfoot treatment, its precise and intensive nature can present clinicians, health care providers, and patients with potential problems if proper diligence and attention to detail is lacking. The purpose of this paper is to highlight common mistakes made throughout the Ponseti treatment protocol from diagnosis to bracing to optimize care for these patients.

We conducted this scoping review of common errors identified by editors and reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Errors includes items that a reviewer or editor might identify as needing correction. The errors were categorized by section of the manuscript: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. After screening 87 published studies, 16 papers were selected for data extraction. Of these 16 studies, the most frequently represented disciplines were Medicine (n = 5), Radiology (n = 2), and Psychiatry (n = 2). The most reported common errors included inappropriate study design, inadequate sample size, poor statistical analysis, and unclear and inadequate description of methods. Abstracts not reflecting the content of the paper were the most frequent general common error in biomedical manuscripts. The findings of this study offer one perspective on common errors in biomedical manuscripts and might be a useful guide for novice authors.

The use of an external fixator (EF) in the emergency department (ED) or the emergency theatre in the ED is reserved for critically ill patients in a life-saving attempt. Hence, usually only fixation/stabilization of the pelvis, tibia, femur and humerus are performed. All other external fixation methods are not indicated in an ED and thus should be performed in the operating room with a sterile environment.Anterior EF is used in unstable pelvic lesions due to anterior-posterior compression, and in stable pelvic fractures in haemodynamically unstable patients.Patients with multiple trauma should be stabilized quickly with EF.The C-clamp has been designed to be used in the ED to stabilize fractures of the sacrum or alterations of the sacroiliac joint in patients with circulatory instability.Choose a modular EF that allows for the free placement of the pins, is radiolucent and is compatible with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Planning the type of framework to be used is crucial.Avoid mistakes in the placement of EF. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:204-214. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190029.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perceptions of students when using five different tooth replicas and to detect common errors in the performance of students that might be attributed to a specific type of tooth replica.
METHODS: Five groups (n = 10 each) of artificial first maxillary molars (DEPT, DRSK, Nissin, DENTALIKE and TrueTooth) were used. All 50 teeth were mounted individually in opaque containers, distributed in 10 packages containing a sample from each with an assigned random order for students to perform root canal treatments. Ten postgraduate students each performed a root canal treatment on the five replicas, in the assigned order, and completed a satisfaction questionnaire. Three trained and calibrated endodontic educators, each with more than 15 years of experience, evaluated their performance using a grading rubric and completed a questionnaire to detect common errors attributed to a specific tooth replica. Inter-rater reliability was calculated with the interclass correlation coefficient for both consistency and absolute agreement. A two-way related measures anova was used to assess the interaction amongst evaluators and tooth groups on the average scores of students. Post hoc T3 Dunnet was used to compare groups. The perceptions of students amongst groups were compared with chi-square and linear-by-linear association tests.
RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was very high for both consistency (ICCC = 0.939; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.902-0.964) and absolute agreement (ICCA = 0.940; 95% CI 0.904-0.965). No significant differences were found amongst the ratings of evaluators; however, students performed differently when using the various tooth replicas (P < 0.05). Overall, 60% of students preferred the DRSK replica for root canal treatment training purposes, followed by DENTALIKE (30%). The least preferred was TrueTooth (70% responses) due to its complex anatomy and poor resistance to instruments and heat pluggers. Evaluators detected several common errors in specific tooth replicas and preferred tooth replicas manufactured based on microCT scans of natural teeth.
CONCLUSIONS: Tooth replicas manufactured based on microCT scans of natural teeth (TrueTooth and DENTALIKE) had much better acceptance amongst evaluators, although students rated and performed less well in TrueTooth replicas due to their greater level of difficulty.