Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957825›Full record

ReviewClinical trials (London, England)2024

Determining a risk-proportionate approach to the validation of statistical programming for clinical trials.

Carrol Gamble, Steff Lewis, Deborah Stocken, Edmund Juszczak, Mike Bradburn, Caroline Doré, Sharon Kean

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical trials (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Carrol GambleLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Steff LewisEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Deborah StockenClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Edmund JuszczakNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mike BradburnClinical Trials Research Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Caroline DoréComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Sharon KeanLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2219-0234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe contribution of the statistician to the design and analysis of a clinical trial is acknowledged as essential. Ability to reconstruct the statistical contribution to a trial requires rigorous and transparent documentation as evidenced by the reproducibility of results. The process of validating statistical programmes is a key requirement. While guidance relating to software development and life cycle methodologies details steps for validation by information systems developers, there is no guidance applicable to programmes written by statisticians. We aimed to develop a risk-based approach to the validation of statistical programming that would support scientific integrity and efficient resource use within clinical trials units.

methodsThe project was embedded within the Information Systems Operational Group and the Statistics Operational Group of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Unit network. Members were asked to share materials relevant to validation of statistical programming. A review of the published literature, regulatory guidance and knowledge of relevant working groups was undertaken. Surveys targeting the Information Systems Operational Group and Statistics Operational Group were developed to determine current practices across the Registered Clinical Trials Unit network. A risk-based approach was drafted and used as a basis for a workshop with representation from statisticians, information systems developers and quality assurance managers (n = 15). The approach was subsequently modified and presented at a second, larger scale workshop (n = 47) to gain a wider perspective, with discussion of content and implications for delivery. The approach was revised based on the discussions and suggestions made. The workshop was attended by a member of the Medicines for Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Inspectorate who also provided comments on the revised draft.

resultsTypes of statistical programming were identified and categorised into six areas: generation of randomisation lists; programmes to explore/understand the data; data cleaning, including complex checks; derivations including data transformations; data monitoring; or interim and final analysis. The risk-based approach considers each category of statistical programme against the impact of an error and its likelihood, whether the programming can be fully prespecified, the need for repeated use and the need for reproducibility. Approaches to the validation of programming within each category are proposed.

conclusionWe have developed a risk-based approach to the validation of statistical programming. It endeavours to facilitate the implementation of targeted quality assurance measures while making efficient use of limited resources.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHumansReproducibility of Resultsclinical trialsRisk-based approachstatistical programmingvalidation

Identifiers

PMID37957825
PMCPMC10865752

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.