Scientific rigour in psycho-oncology trials

Why and how to avoid common statistical errors

Melanie L Bell, Jake Olivier, Madeleine T. King

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective It is well documented that statistical and methodological flaws are common in much of the health research literature, including psycho-oncology. These can have far-reaching effects, including the publishing of misleading results; the wasting of time, effort, and financial resources; exposure of patients to the potential harms of research and decreased confidence in science and researchers by the public. Methods Several of the most common statistical errors and methodological pitfalls that occur in the field of psycho-oncology are discussed, including those that occur at the design, analysis, reporting and conclusion stages. Results Fourteen topics are briefly discussed, explaining why there is a problem and how to avoid it. These include proper approaches to power, clustering, missing data, categorization of continuous variables, subgroup analyses, multiple comparisons, statistical interactions, confidence intervals and correct interpretation of p-values. Extensive referencing points the reader to more in-depth explanations. Conclusions To increase the scientific rigour in psycho-oncology, researchers should involve a biostatistician from the beginning of the study and should commit to continuing education on best practices in the fields of statistics and reporting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)499-505
Number of pages7
JournalPsycho-Oncology
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Continuing Education
Practice Guidelines
Research
Cluster Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Health

Keywords

  • analysis
  • cancer
  • design
  • oncology
  • pitfalls
  • quality control
  • reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

Scientific rigour in psycho-oncology trials : Why and how to avoid common statistical errors. / Bell, Melanie L; Olivier, Jake; King, Madeleine T.

In: Psycho-Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 03.2013, p. 499-505.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bell, Melanie L ; Olivier, Jake ; King, Madeleine T. / Scientific rigour in psycho-oncology trials : Why and how to avoid common statistical errors. In: Psycho-Oncology. 2013 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 499-505.
@article{2417c39fc3fe427f87d1796f632b19a5,
title = "Scientific rigour in psycho-oncology trials: Why and how to avoid common statistical errors",
abstract = "Objective It is well documented that statistical and methodological flaws are common in much of the health research literature, including psycho-oncology. These can have far-reaching effects, including the publishing of misleading results; the wasting of time, effort, and financial resources; exposure of patients to the potential harms of research and decreased confidence in science and researchers by the public. Methods Several of the most common statistical errors and methodological pitfalls that occur in the field of psycho-oncology are discussed, including those that occur at the design, analysis, reporting and conclusion stages. Results Fourteen topics are briefly discussed, explaining why there is a problem and how to avoid it. These include proper approaches to power, clustering, missing data, categorization of continuous variables, subgroup analyses, multiple comparisons, statistical interactions, confidence intervals and correct interpretation of p-values. Extensive referencing points the reader to more in-depth explanations. Conclusions To increase the scientific rigour in psycho-oncology, researchers should involve a biostatistician from the beginning of the study and should commit to continuing education on best practices in the fields of statistics and reporting.",
keywords = "analysis, cancer, design, oncology, pitfalls, quality control, reporting",
author = "Bell, {Melanie L} and Jake Olivier and King, {Madeleine T.}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1002/pon.3046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "499--505",
journal = "Psycho-Oncology",
issn = "1057-9249",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientific rigour in psycho-oncology trials

T2 - Why and how to avoid common statistical errors

AU - Bell, Melanie L

AU - Olivier, Jake

AU - King, Madeleine T.

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - Objective It is well documented that statistical and methodological flaws are common in much of the health research literature, including psycho-oncology. These can have far-reaching effects, including the publishing of misleading results; the wasting of time, effort, and financial resources; exposure of patients to the potential harms of research and decreased confidence in science and researchers by the public. Methods Several of the most common statistical errors and methodological pitfalls that occur in the field of psycho-oncology are discussed, including those that occur at the design, analysis, reporting and conclusion stages. Results Fourteen topics are briefly discussed, explaining why there is a problem and how to avoid it. These include proper approaches to power, clustering, missing data, categorization of continuous variables, subgroup analyses, multiple comparisons, statistical interactions, confidence intervals and correct interpretation of p-values. Extensive referencing points the reader to more in-depth explanations. Conclusions To increase the scientific rigour in psycho-oncology, researchers should involve a biostatistician from the beginning of the study and should commit to continuing education on best practices in the fields of statistics and reporting.

AB - Objective It is well documented that statistical and methodological flaws are common in much of the health research literature, including psycho-oncology. These can have far-reaching effects, including the publishing of misleading results; the wasting of time, effort, and financial resources; exposure of patients to the potential harms of research and decreased confidence in science and researchers by the public. Methods Several of the most common statistical errors and methodological pitfalls that occur in the field of psycho-oncology are discussed, including those that occur at the design, analysis, reporting and conclusion stages. Results Fourteen topics are briefly discussed, explaining why there is a problem and how to avoid it. These include proper approaches to power, clustering, missing data, categorization of continuous variables, subgroup analyses, multiple comparisons, statistical interactions, confidence intervals and correct interpretation of p-values. Extensive referencing points the reader to more in-depth explanations. Conclusions To increase the scientific rigour in psycho-oncology, researchers should involve a biostatistician from the beginning of the study and should commit to continuing education on best practices in the fields of statistics and reporting.

KW - analysis

KW - cancer

KW - design

KW - oncology

KW - pitfalls

KW - quality control

KW - reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874714773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874714773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pon.3046

DO - 10.1002/pon.3046

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 499

EP - 505

JO - Psycho-Oncology

JF - Psycho-Oncology

SN - 1057-9249

IS - 3

ER -