Department of Biostatistics at Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Institute of Mathematics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 4;17(3):e0264819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264819. eCollection 2022.
The reporting quality in medical research has recently been critically discussed. While reporting guidelines intend to maximize the value from funded research, and initiatives such as the EQUATOR network have been introduced to advance high quality reporting, the uptake of the guidelines by researchers could be improved. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of a biostatistician to the reporting and methodological quality of health research, and to identify methodological knowledge gaps.
In a retrospective, single center, observational cohort study, two groups of publications were compared. The group of exposed publications had an academic biostatistician on the author list, whereas the group of non-exposed publications did not include a biostatistician of the evaluated group. Rating of reporting quality was done in blinded fashion and in duplicate. The primary outcome was a sum score based on six dimensions, ranging between 0 (worst) and 11 (best). The study protocol was reviewed and approved as a registered report.
There were 131 publications in the exposed group published between 2017 and 2018. Of these, 95 were either RCTs, observational, or prediction / prognostic studies. Corresponding matches in the group of non-exposed publications were identified in a reproducible manner. Comparison of reporting quality overall revealed a 1.60 (95%CI from 0.92 to 2.28, p <0.0001) units higher reporting quality for exposed publications. A subgroup analysis within study types showed higher reporting quality across all three study types.
Our study is the first to report an association of a higher reporting quality and methodological strength in health research publications with a biostatistician on the author list. The higher reporting quality persisted through subgroups of study types and dimensions. Methodological knowledge gaps were identified for prediction / prognostic studies, and for reporting on statistical methods in general and missing values, specifically.
医学研究的报告质量最近受到了严格的讨论。虽然报告指南旨在最大限度地提高资助研究的价值，并且引入了 EQUATOR 网络等倡议来提高高质量报告，但研究人员对指南的采用可以得到改善。本研究的目的是评估生物统计学家对健康研究报告和方法学质量的贡献，并确定方法学知识差距。
在一项回顾性、单中心、观察性队列研究中，比较了两组出版物。暴露组的出版物中作者列表中有学术生物统计学家，而未暴露组的出版物中未包括评估组的生物统计学家。以盲法和重复的方式进行报告质量评分。主要结果是基于六个维度的总和评分，范围为 0（最差）到 11（最佳）。该研究方案经过审查和批准，作为已注册的报告。
暴露组有 131 篇出版物发表于 2017 年至 2018 年期间，其中 95 篇为 RCT、观察性或预测/预后研究。以可重复的方式在未暴露组的出版物中找到了相应的匹配。总体比较报告质量显示，暴露组的报告质量高 1.60 个单位（95%CI 为 0.92 至 2.28，p<0.0001）。在研究类型的亚组分析中，所有三种研究类型的报告质量都更高。
我们的研究首次报告了作者列表中有生物统计学家与健康研究出版物的报告质量和方法学强度之间存在关联。这种更高的报告质量在研究类型和维度的亚组中仍然存在。在预测/预后研究中以及在报告统计方法和缺失值方面发现了方法学知识差距。
