ArticleProblemy endokrinologii2021
Towards Good Statistical Practice. CORSTAN Validated Questionnaire for Assessing the Correctness of Statistical Analysis in Medical Research.
Article in Problemy endokrinologii, 2021. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn evidence-based medicine, the research methodology is determined by the risks of systematic biases and incorrect data analysis. Minimizing both risks increases the internal validity of the study. There are numerous recommendations and guidelines for data analysis and reporting, but the international community has not yet developed a questionnaire for reviewers to assess the quality of statistical analysis.
aimTo develop a tool for formalized assessment of the quality of statistical analysis presented in scientific medical publications. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe questionnaire was developed based on the authors' decades of experience in statistical data analysis and reviewing the statistical aspects of biomedical articles and dissertations. The SAMPL guidelines, ICH E9, and other guidelines were taken into account when developing the questionnaire. Internal validation of the questionnaire was based on an independent assessment by two experts of 20 randomly selected articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from elibrary.ru, and further statistical analysis of the agreement of experts' conclusions.
resultsThe CORSTAN (CORrect STatistical ANalysis) questionnaire was developed, which consists of two parts: the first part (10 questions) is intended for evaluating studies of any designs, while the second (following eight questions) is for additional assessment of RCTs. A stratification of the risk of incorrect statistical analysis is proposed. The evaluation of the questionnaire's internal validity showed its substantial and almost perfect agreement for each question and each article both in the sum of points and risk level.
conclusionThe use of the questionnaire will simplify and harmonize the statistical review of publications and manuscripts in various institutions - scientific journals, dissertation boards, etc. The questionnaire can also be helpful for authors during preparing manuscripts; it will also help improve the quality of publications and research itself. We plan to improve the questionnaire as we gain experience in its application.
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.