Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34486156›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2021

Best practices in statistical computing.

Ricardo Sanchez, Beth Ann Griffin, Joseph Pane, Daniel F McCaffrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ricardo SanchezUnitedHealthcare, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9595-432X
Beth Ann GriffinRAND Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2391-4601
Joseph PaneRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7709-1751
Daniel F McCaffreyEducational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1196-5273

Funding

Improving Causal Inference Tools for Addiction ResearchersR01DA045049 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI GRIFFIN, BETH ANN, MCCAFFREY, DANIEL F · 2018 to 2020
$2.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045049NIH HHS R01DA045049
6 · The paper itself

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

Mathematical ComputingHumansdata managementmethodologyversion control

Identifiers

PMID34486156
PMCPMC9662695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.