ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2021
Guidance for biostatisticians on their essential contributions to clinical and translational research protocol review.
Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Testing of the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT) to Evaluate Clinical Trial Protocol Document Quality.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Self-management including exercise, education and activity modification compared to usual care for adolescents with Osgood-Schlatter (the SOGOOD trial): protocol of a randomized controlled superiority trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- A template for the authoring of statistical analysis plans.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- A comprehensive survey of collaborative biostatistics units in academic health centers.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2022Article
- How to write statistical analysis section in medical research.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2022Article
- Article
- A multicentric, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of structured physical activity training and cognitive behavioural therapy versus usual care in heart failure patients: a protocol for the PACT-HF trial.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rigorous scientific review of research protocols is critical to making funding decisions, and to the protection of both human and non-human research participants. Given the increasing complexity of research designs and data analysis methods, quantitative experts, such as biostatisticians, play an essential role in evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of proposed methods. However, there is a common misconception that a statistician's input is relevant only to sample size/power and statistical analysis sections of a protocol. The comprehensive nature of a biostatistical review coupled with limited guidance on key components of protocol review motived this work. Members of the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science used a consensus approach to identify the elements of research protocols that a biostatistician should consider in a review, and provide specific guidance on how each element should be reviewed. We present the resulting review framework as an educational tool and guideline for biostatisticians navigating review boards and panels. We briefly describe the approach to developing the framework, and we provide a comprehensive checklist and guidance on review of each protocol element. We posit that the biostatistical reviewer, through their breadth of engagement across multiple disciplines and experience with a range of research designs, can and should contribute significantly beyond review of the statistical analysis plan and sample size justification. Through careful scientific review, we hope to prevent excess resource expenditure and risk to humans and animals on poorly planned 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.