ArticleStatistics in medicine2014
STRengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: the STRATOS initiative.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
75 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Poor handling of continuous predictors in clinical prediction models using logistic regression: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Systematic review of statistical approaches to quantify, or correct for, measurement error in a continuous exposure in nutritional epidemiology.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Integrating genetic and imaging information to enhance cardiovascular risk stratification: rationale and design of the CVRISK-IT randomized controlled trial.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Article
- Assessment of real-world evidence research competencies in federated research networks: a maternal health fellowship program evaluation.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Methods for Adjusting for Covariate Measurement Error in Flexible Modeling of Functional Form: Designing a Blinded, Controlled Neutral Comparison Simulation Study.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- A stakeholder-inclusive conceptual framework for modeling routinely collected health data for therapeutic decision-making illustrated by means of multistate models.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- An Overview and Recent Developments in the Analysis of Multistate Processes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Review
- SPIE: An organizational framework to facilitate accessibility in academic statistical consulting centers.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- How to report neurotechnology and artificial intelligence studies in epilepsy: Peer-review-inspired recommendations.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Risk factors of decisional conflict among people living with chronic pain identified through a pan-Canadian survey.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- China National Glioma Registry (CNGR): protocol for a prospective observational registry study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- On "Confirmatory" Methodological Research in Statistics and Related Fields.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Design aspects for prognostic factor studies.BMJ open · 2025Review
- TTF-1 expression stratifies chemoimmunotherapy benefits in PD-L1-negative lung adenocarcinoma: a real-world biomarker validation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Commentary: Regression Models-Efforts Are Required to Improve Statistical Practice and Teaching.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- On the Uses and Abuses of Regression Models: A Call for Reform of Statistical Practice and Teaching.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The validity and practical utility of observational medical research depends critically on good study design, excellent data quality, appropriate statistical methods and accurate interpretation of results. Statistical methodology has seen substantial development in recent times. Unfortunately, many of these methodological developments are ignored in practice. Consequently, design and analysis of observational studies often exhibit serious weaknesses. The lack of guidance on vital practical issues discourages many applied researchers from using more sophisticated and possibly more appropriate methods when analyzing observational studies. Furthermore, many analyses are conducted by researchers with a relatively weak statistical background and limited experience in using statistical methodology and software. Consequently, even 'standard' analyses reported in the medical literature are often flawed, casting doubt on their results and conclusions. An efficient way to help researchers to keep up with recent methodological developments is to develop guidance documents that are spread to the research community at large. These observations led to the initiation of the strengthening analytical thinking for observational studies (STRATOS) initiative, a large collaboration of experts in many different areas of biostatistical research. The objective of STRATOS is to provide accessible and accurate guidance in the design and analysis of observational studies. The guidance is intended for applied statisticians and other data analysts with varying levels of statistical education, experience and interests. In this article, we introduce the STRATOS initiative and its main aims, present the need for guidance documents and outline the planned approach and progress so far. We encourage other biostatisticians to become involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.