Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527300›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2021

Guidance for biostatisticians on their essential contributions to clinical and translational research protocol review.

Jody D Ciolino, Cathie Spino, Walter T Ambrosius, Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Shari Messinger Cayetano, Jodi A Lapidus, Paul J Nietert, Robert A Oster, Susan M Perkins, Brad H Pollock and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A template for the authoring of statistical analysis plans.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. How to write statistical analysis section in medical research.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

16 authors.

Jody D CiolinoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Cathie SpinoDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Walter T AmbrosiusDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Shokoufeh KhalatbariMichigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Shari Messinger CayetanoDepartment of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Jodi A LapidusSchool of Public Health, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.
Paul J NietertDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3933-4986
Robert A OsterDepartment of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2247-8596
Susan M PerkinsDepartment of Biostatistics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Brad H PollockDepartment of Public Health Sciences, UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA, USA.
Gina-Maria PomannDuke Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design (BERD) Methods Core, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Lori Lyn PriceTufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
Todd W RiceDepartment of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Medical Director, Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program, Vice-President for Clinical Trials Innovation and Operations, Nashville, TN, USA.
Tor D TostesonDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Division of Biostatistics, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA.
Christopher J LindsellDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3297-2811
Heidi SprattDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9420-5028

Funding

Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) -Identifying correlates of functional immunity in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasmaUL1TR002243 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Paul A. Harris, Wesley H Self · 2017 to 2026
$130.7M
Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Subproject Title: Clinical Research Education, Mentoring and Career Development CoreU54GM104941 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI Gregory E Hicks · 2013 to 2026
$60.5M
Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Pilot Supplement)UL1TR002544 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2018 to 2022
$50.2M
National Dissemination of I-Corps@NCATS: Accelerating Translation through CommercializationUL1TR003096 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GUTIERREZ, ORLANDO M, KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2019 to 2023
$43.6M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
UTMB Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001439 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI URBAN, RANDALL J · 2015 to 2024
$40.0M
Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001420 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ARD, JAMY D, FOLEY, KRISTIE L · 2015 to 2023
$32.3M
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001086NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001420NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001439NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002243NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002529NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002544NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002736NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003096NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072582NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK123704NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104941
6 · The paper itself

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

BiostatisticianProtocolReviewScientific rigorTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID34527300
PMCPMC8427547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.