ArticleThe American statistician2019
The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making.
Article in The American statistician, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital Consultation From Outpatient Clinicians for Medically Complex Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA pediatrics · 2021Trial
- Elicitation of prior probability distributions for a proposed Bayesian randomized clinical trial of whole blood for trauma resuscitation.Transfusion · 2020Trial
- Application and interpretation of linear-regression analysis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Review
- A cross-sectional survey on principal investigators' clinical research knowledge in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Reliability of COVID-19 data: An evaluation and reflection.PloS one · 2022Article
- Youth Mental Health First Aid: Examining the Influence of Pre-Existing Attitudes and Knowledge on Training Effectiveness.The journal of primary prevention · 2021Article
- An Expert Elicitation on the Effects of a Ban on Menthol Cigarettes and Cigars in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Article
- Finding Consensus About the Level of Medication Safety in a Hospital Setting: Development and an Example of Application of a Modified Delphi Method.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Kid influencers in Spain: understanding the themes they address and preteens' engagement with their YouTube channels.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Attack on statistical significance: A balanced approach for medical research.The Indian journal of medical research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article resulted from our participation in the session on the "role of expert opinion and judgment in statistical inference" at the October 2017 ASA Symposium on Statistical Inference. We present a strong, unified statement on roles of expert judgment in statistics with processes for obtaining input, whether from a Bayesian or frequentist perspective. Topics include the role of subjectivity in the cycle of scientific inference and decisions, followed by a clinical trial and a greenhouse gas emissions case study that illustrate the role of judgments and the importance of basing them on objective information and a comprehensive uncertainty assessment. We close with a call for increased proactivity and involvement of statisticians in study conceptualization, design, conduct, analysis, and communication.
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.