ArticleBMJ open2020
Comprehensive survey among statistical members of medical ethics committees in Germany on their personal impression of completeness and correctness of biostatistical aspects of submitted study protocols.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess biostatistical quality of study protocols submitted to German medical ethics committees according to personal appraisal of their statistical members.
designWe conducted a web-based survey among biostatisticians who have been active as members in German medical ethics committees during the past 3 years.
settingThe study population was identified by a comprehensive web search on websites of German medical ethics committees.
participantsThe final list comprised 86 eligible persons. In total, 57 (66%) completed the survey. QUESTIONNAIRE: The first item checked whether the inclusion criterion was met. The last item assessed satisfaction with the survey. Four items aimed to characterise the medical ethics committee in terms of type and location, one item asked for the urgency of biostatistical training addressed to the medical investigators. The main 2×12 items reported an individual assessment of the quality of biostatistical aspects in the submitted study protocols, while distinguishing studies according to the German Medicines Act (AMG)/German Act on Medical Devices (MPG) and studies non-regulated by these laws. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The individual assessment of the quality of biostatistical aspects corresponds to the primary objective. Thus, participants were asked to complete the sentence 'In x% of the submitted study protocols, the following problem occurs', where 12 different statistical problems were formulated. All other items assess secondary endpoints.
resultsFor all biostatistical aspects, 45 of 49 (91.8%) participants judged the quality of AMG/MPG study protocols much better than that of 'non-regulated' studies. The latter are in median affected 20%-60% more often by statistical problems. The highest need for training was reported for sample size calculation, missing values and multiple comparison procedures.
conclusionsBiostatisticians being active in German medical ethics committees classify the biostatistical quality of study protocols as low for 'non-regulated' studies, whereas quality is much better for AMG/MPG studies.
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.