Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians
- PMID: 30304365
- DOI: 10.7326/M18-1230
Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians
Abstract
Background: Inappropriate analysis and reporting of biomedical research remain a problem despite advances in statistical methods and efforts to educate researchers.
Objective: To determine the frequency and severity of requests biostatisticians receive from researchers for inappropriate analysis and reporting of data during statistical consultations.
Design: Online survey.
Setting: United States.
Participants: A randomly drawn sample of 522 American Statistical Association members self-identifying as consulting biostatisticians.
Measurements: The Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting Questionnaire soliciting reports about the frequency and perceived severity of specific requests for inappropriate analysis and reporting.
Results: Of 522 consulting biostatisticians contacted, 390 provided sufficient responses: a completion rate of 74.7%. The 4 most frequently reported inappropriate requests rated as "most severe" by at least 20% of the respondents were, in order of frequency, removing or altering some data records to better support the research hypothesis; interpreting the statistical findings on the basis of expectation, not actual results; not reporting the presence of key missing data that might bias the results; and ignoring violations of assumptions that would change results from positive to negative. These requests were reported most often by younger biostatisticians.
Limitations: The survey provides information on the reported frequency of inappropriate requests but not on how such requests were handled or whether the requests reflected researchers' maleficence or inadequate knowledge about statistical and research methods. In addition, other inappropriate requests may have been made that were not prespecified in the survey.
Conclusion: This survey suggests that researchers frequently make inappropriate requests of their biostatistical consultants regarding the analysis and reporting of their data. Understanding the reasons for these requests and how they are handled requires further study.
Primary funding source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Comment in
-
Inappropriate Statistical Analysis and Reporting in Medical Research: Perverse Incentives and Institutional Solutions.Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 16;169(8):577-578. doi: 10.7326/M18-2516. Epub 2018 Oct 9. Ann Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 30304363 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting Study: Additional Findings and Concerns.JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019 Jul;4(3):271-275. doi: 10.1177/2380084419837294. Epub 2019 Apr 22. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019. PMID: 31009581
-
Identifying bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: findings from a US national pilot survey of biostatisticians.BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 16;7(11):e018491. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018491. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 29146653 Free PMC article.
-
Engaging Future Clinical Oncology Researchers: An Initiative to Integrate Teaching of Biostatistics and Research Methodology into Specialty Training.Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 May;28(5):306-16. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2015.12.003. Epub 2015 Dec 22. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016. PMID: 26726167
-
Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK 'Yellow Card Scheme': literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys.Health Technol Assess. 2011 May;15(20):1-234, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta15200. Health Technol Assess. 2011. PMID: 21545758 Review.
-
Biostatistical collaboration in medical research.Biometrics. 1990 Mar;46(1):1-18; discussion 19-32. Biometrics. 1990. PMID: 2190637 Review.
Cited by
-
Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models.BMC Med. 2023 Sep 4;21(1):339. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03048-6. BMC Med. 2023. PMID: 37667344 Free PMC article.
-
Semantic and cognitive tools to aid statistical science: replace confidence and significance by compatibility and surprise.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 30;20(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01105-9. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020. PMID: 32998683 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018. Epub 2021 May 30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021. PMID: 34077797 Free PMC article.
-
ALL-IN meta-analysis: breathing life into living systematic reviews and prospective meta-analyses.F1000Res. 2022 May 19;11:549. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.74223.2. eCollection 2022. F1000Res. 2022. PMID: 36313543 Free PMC article.
-
Spatial variation of premarital HIV testing and its associated factors among married women in Ethiopia: Multilevel and spatial analysis using 2016 demographic and health survey data.PLoS One. 2023 Nov 30;18(11):e0293227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293227. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 38032924 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources