Article

Mesa redonda: La Estadística en la Investigación Médica

Questiio: Quaderns d'Estadistica, Sistemes, Informatica i Investigació Operativa, ISSN 0210-8054, Vol. 25, Nº. 1, 2001, pags. 121-156 01/2001;
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Este artículo es una transcripción de las conferencias dictadas en la mesa organizada en el 4º Congreso Galego de Estatistica y Investigación de Operacions que tuvo lugar en Santiago de Compostela en noviembre de 1999. Los autores discuten sobre el posible uso o abuso de la estadística en artículos científicos, sobre lo que se necesitaría para alcanzar la interdisciplinariedad y lo que se entiende por éxito profesional. Se define la disciplina (bioestadística) y se identifica a sus profesionales (bioestadísticos). Se discute sobre el papel de un bioestadístico en un equipo de investigación médico y se repasan las dificultades que tienen los médicos para realizar estudios clínico-epidemiológicos.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Guadalupe Gomez, Aug 26, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reports of clinical trials often contain a wealth of data comparing treatments. This can lead to problems in interpretation, particularly when significance testing is used extensively. We examined 45 reports of comparative trials published in the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, or the New England Journal of Medicine to illustrate these statistical problems. The issues we considered included the analysis of multiple end points, the analysis of repeated measurements over time, subgroup analyses, trials of multiple treatments, and the overall number of significance tests in a trial report. Interpretation of large amounts of data is complicated by the common failure to specify in advance the intended size of a trial or statistical stopping rules for interim analyses. In addition, summaries or abstracts of trials tend to emphasize the more statistically significant end points. Overall, the reporting of clinical trials appears to be biased toward an exaggeration of treatment differences. Trials should have a clearer predefined policy for data analysis and reporting. In particular, a limited number of primary treatment comparisons should be specified in advance. The overuse of arbitrary significance levels (for example, P less than 0.05) is detrimental to good scientific reporting, and more emphasis should be given to the magnitude of treatment differences and to estimation methods such as confidence intervals.
    New England Journal of Medicine 09/1987; 317(7):426-32. DOI:10.1056/NEJM198708133170706 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been an explosive growth in the development of statistical methodology over the past several decades. Research in both medicine and public health, in which the involvement of biostatisticians has increased dramatically during this period, has been both a beneficiary of this new methodology as well as a source of new problems. The contributions of statistical methodology in design, implementation, and analysis as they relate to the role that biostatistics and biostatisticians now play in the field of medical research are addressed. We comment on: (1) the acceptance by the medical community that biostatistical concepts are an integral part of sound medical research; (2) the sometimes unrealistic expectations placed on biostatistics and biostatisticians given limited resources and/or limited control; (3) some controversies among biostatisticians; and (4) the need for emphasizing the design and implementation phases of medical investigations.
    Biometrics 04/1990; 46(1):1-18; discussion 19-32. · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 12/1993; 270(17):2093-5. DOI:10.1001/jama.270.17.2093 · 30.39 Impact Factor