ArticleStatistics in medicine2021
Best practices in statistical computing.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The statistical software revolution in pharmaceutical development: challenges and opportunities in open source.Drug discovery today · 2026Review
- From policy to practice: progress towards data- and code-sharing in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Determining a risk-proportionate approach to the validation of statistical programming for clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Review
- Validating the knowledge bank approach for personalized prediction of survival in acute myeloid leukemia: a reproducibility study.Human genetics · 2022Article
- Teaching reproducible research for medical students and postgraduate pharmaceutical scientists.BMC research notes · 2021Article
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
The world is becoming increasingly complex, both in terms of the rich sources of data we have access to and the statistical and computational methods we can use on data. These factors create an ever-increasing risk for errors in code and the sensitivity of findings to data preparation and the execution of complex statistical and computing methods. The consequences of coding and data mistakes can be substantial. In this paper, we describe the key steps for implementing a code quality assurance (QA) process that researchers can follow to improve their coding practices throughout a project to assure the quality of the final data, code, analyses, and results. These steps include: (i) adherence to principles for code writing and style that follow best practices; (ii) clear written documentation that describes code, workflow, and key analytic decisions; (iii) careful version control; (iv) good data management; and (v) regular testing and review. Following these steps will greatly improve the ability of a study to assure results are accurate and reproducible. The responsibility for code QA falls not only on individual researchers but institutions, journals, and funding agencies as well.
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.