How statistical expertise is used in medical research

Douglas G. Altman, Steven N. Goodman, Sara Schroter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Context: Investigation of the nature and frequency of statistician involvement in medical research and its relation to the final editorial decision. Methods: Authors of original research articles who submitted to BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine from May through August 2001 were sent a short questionnaire at the time of manuscript submission. Authors were asked if they received assistance from a person with statistical expertise, the nature of any such contribution, and reasons why, if no statistical input was received. Results: The response rate was 75% (704/943); methodological input was reported for 514 (73%) of these papers. In 435 papers (85%), such input was provided by bio-statisticians or epidemiologists and, if deemed significant, was typically associated with authorship. A total of 33 of 122 methodologists (27%) whose main contribution started at the analysis stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship. Research without methodological assistance was more likely to be rejected without review (71% vs 57%; x 2=10.6; P=.001) and possibly less likely to be accepted for publication (7% vs 11%; x 2=2.37; P=.12). Conclusions: Statistical input to medical research is widely recommended but inconsistently obtained. Individuals providing such expertise are often not involved until the analysis of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2817-2820
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume287
Issue number21
StatePublished - Jun 5 2002

Fingerprint

Authorship
Biomedical Research
Manuscripts
Internal Medicine
Research
Publications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Altman, D. G., Goodman, S. N., & Schroter, S. (2002). How statistical expertise is used in medical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2817-2820.

How statistical expertise is used in medical research. / Altman, Douglas G.; Goodman, Steven N.; Schroter, Sara.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, No. 21, 05.06.2002, p. 2817-2820.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Altman, DG, Goodman, SN & Schroter, S 2002, 'How statistical expertise is used in medical research', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 287, no. 21, pp. 2817-2820.
Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2817-2820.
Altman, Douglas G. ; Goodman, Steven N. ; Schroter, Sara. / How statistical expertise is used in medical research. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002 ; Vol. 287, No. 21. pp. 2817-2820.
@article{b289be522df641a5b27ac08dbc8da09f,
title = "How statistical expertise is used in medical research",
abstract = "Context: Investigation of the nature and frequency of statistician involvement in medical research and its relation to the final editorial decision. Methods: Authors of original research articles who submitted to BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine from May through August 2001 were sent a short questionnaire at the time of manuscript submission. Authors were asked if they received assistance from a person with statistical expertise, the nature of any such contribution, and reasons why, if no statistical input was received. Results: The response rate was 75{\%} (704/943); methodological input was reported for 514 (73{\%}) of these papers. In 435 papers (85{\%}), such input was provided by bio-statisticians or epidemiologists and, if deemed significant, was typically associated with authorship. A total of 33 of 122 methodologists (27{\%}) whose main contribution started at the analysis stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship. Research without methodological assistance was more likely to be rejected without review (71{\%} vs 57{\%}; x 2=10.6; P=.001) and possibly less likely to be accepted for publication (7{\%} vs 11{\%}; x 2=2.37; P=.12). Conclusions: Statistical input to medical research is widely recommended but inconsistently obtained. Individuals providing such expertise are often not involved until the analysis of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.",
author = "Altman, {Douglas G.} and Goodman, {Steven N.} and Sara Schroter",
year = "2002",
month = "6",
day = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "287",
pages = "2817--2820",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "21",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How statistical expertise is used in medical research

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Goodman, Steven N.

AU - Schroter, Sara

PY - 2002/6/5

Y1 - 2002/6/5

N2 - Context: Investigation of the nature and frequency of statistician involvement in medical research and its relation to the final editorial decision. Methods: Authors of original research articles who submitted to BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine from May through August 2001 were sent a short questionnaire at the time of manuscript submission. Authors were asked if they received assistance from a person with statistical expertise, the nature of any such contribution, and reasons why, if no statistical input was received. Results: The response rate was 75% (704/943); methodological input was reported for 514 (73%) of these papers. In 435 papers (85%), such input was provided by bio-statisticians or epidemiologists and, if deemed significant, was typically associated with authorship. A total of 33 of 122 methodologists (27%) whose main contribution started at the analysis stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship. Research without methodological assistance was more likely to be rejected without review (71% vs 57%; x 2=10.6; P=.001) and possibly less likely to be accepted for publication (7% vs 11%; x 2=2.37; P=.12). Conclusions: Statistical input to medical research is widely recommended but inconsistently obtained. Individuals providing such expertise are often not involved until the analysis of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.

AB - Context: Investigation of the nature and frequency of statistician involvement in medical research and its relation to the final editorial decision. Methods: Authors of original research articles who submitted to BMJ and Annals of Internal Medicine from May through August 2001 were sent a short questionnaire at the time of manuscript submission. Authors were asked if they received assistance from a person with statistical expertise, the nature of any such contribution, and reasons why, if no statistical input was received. Results: The response rate was 75% (704/943); methodological input was reported for 514 (73%) of these papers. In 435 papers (85%), such input was provided by bio-statisticians or epidemiologists and, if deemed significant, was typically associated with authorship. A total of 33 of 122 methodologists (27%) whose main contribution started at the analysis stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship. Research without methodological assistance was more likely to be rejected without review (71% vs 57%; x 2=10.6; P=.001) and possibly less likely to be accepted for publication (7% vs 11%; x 2=2.37; P=.12). Conclusions: Statistical input to medical research is widely recommended but inconsistently obtained. Individuals providing such expertise are often not involved until the analysis of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037024221&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037024221&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12038922

AN - SCOPUS:0037024221

VL - 287

SP - 2817

EP - 2820

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 21

ER -