IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0140159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical Use in Clinical Studies: Is There Evidence of a Methodological Shift?

Author

Listed:
  • Dali Yi
  • Dihui Ma
  • Gaoming Li
  • Liang Zhou
  • Qin Xiao
  • Yanqi Zhang
  • Xiaoyu Liu
  • Hongru Chen
  • Julia Christine Pettigrew
  • Dong Yi
  • Ling Liu
  • Yazhou Wu

Abstract

Background: Several studies indicate that the statistical education model and level in medical training fails to meet the demands of clinicians, especially when they want to understand published clinical research. We investigated how study designs and statistical methods in clinical studies have changed in the last twenty years, and we identified the current trends in study designs and statistical methods in clinical studies. Methods: We reviewed 838 eligible clinical study articles that were published in 1990, 2000, and 2010 in four journals New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association and Nature Medicine. The study types, study designs, sample designs, data quality controls, statistical methods and statistical software were examined. Results: Substantial changes occurred in the past twenty years. The majority of the studies focused on drug trials (61.6%, n = 516). In 1990, 2000, and 2010, there was an incremental increase in RCT studies (74.4%, 82.8%, and 84.0%, respectively, p = 0.013). Over time, there was increased attention on the details of selecting a sample and controlling bias, and there was a higher frequency of utilizing complex statistical methods. In 2010, the most common statistical methods were confidence interval for superiority and non-inferiority comparison (41.6%), survival analysis (28.5%), correction analysis for covariates (18.8%) and Logistic regression (15.3%). Conclusions: These findings indicate that statistical measures in clinical studies are continuously developing and that the credibility of clinical study results is increasing. These findings provide information for future changes in statistical training in medical education.

Suggested Citation

  • Dali Yi & Dihui Ma & Gaoming Li & Liang Zhou & Qin Xiao & Yanqi Zhang & Xiaoyu Liu & Hongru Chen & Julia Christine Pettigrew & Dong Yi & Ling Liu & Yazhou Wu, 2015. "Statistical Use in Clinical Studies: Is There Evidence of a Methodological Shift?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140159
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140159
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140159&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0140159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.