Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40727835›Full record

ArticleStat2022

Reaping what you SOW: Guidelines and strategies for writing scopes of work for statistical consulting.

Ryan A Peterson, Camille J Hochheimer, Gary K Grunwald, Rachel L Johnson, Cheyret Wood, Mary D Sammel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stat, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ryan A PetersonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4650-5798
Camille J HochheimerDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0984-0909
Gary K GrunwaldDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.
Rachel L JohnsonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.
Cheyret WoodDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9418-4917
Mary D SammelDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.

Funding

NIH Prior Approval Process ProfessionalUL1TR002535 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2018 to 2022
$51.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical consulting has the potential to be remarkably rewarding or frustratingly fruitless. Attentive and careful execution of a statistical scoping process will yield top-caliber research and collaborative partnerships. We provide guidelines and strategies for how to write effective statistical scopes of work (SOWs) and build this procedure into a statistical consulting workflow, using illustrative case studies along the way. Effective SOWs provide a solid foundation on which to build fruitful research partnerships, to avoid common pitfalls and to weather turbulent situations successfully.

Indexed as

collaborationeffective communicationplanningproject managementscoping projects

Identifiers

PMID40727835
PMCPMC12302940

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.