2019
DOI: 10.1111/bju.14640
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology

Abstract: In an effort to improve the quality of statistics in the clinical urology literature, statisticians at European Urology, The Journal of Urology, Urology and BJU International came together to develop a set of guidelines to address common errors of statistical analysis, reporting, and interpretation. Authors should ‘break any of the guidelines if it makes scientific sense to do so’, but would need to provide a clear justification. Adoption of the guidelines will in our view not only increase the quality of publ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
63
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All data were expressed as means ± SD, and statistical methods refer to "Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology" provided by Assel et al [17].The difference in the uptake of 131 I-PD-L1-Mab was assessed using ANOVA with Student-Newman-Keuls method multiple comparison test. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of tumor uptake at different time points on tumors PD-L1 expression, and the areas under the curves (AUCs) at different time points were compared using the U tests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All data were expressed as means ± SD, and statistical methods refer to "Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology" provided by Assel et al [17].The difference in the uptake of 131 I-PD-L1-Mab was assessed using ANOVA with Student-Newman-Keuls method multiple comparison test. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of tumor uptake at different time points on tumors PD-L1 expression, and the areas under the curves (AUCs) at different time points were compared using the U tests.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed for descriptive variables [32]. The Fisher's exact test was performed to compare the categorical variables.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For continuous predictors, direct comparisons of the risk ratios (odds or hazard ratios) are difficult because continuous variables are generally expressed in metrics relevant to clinical practice (eg, mg/dL or age in years). For more discussion, see section 5.6 in Assel et al 17 Lastly, it is not widely understood that the estimated associations for variables with P < .05 are biased upward in comparison with the true value in the population, whereas those with P > .05 are biased downward. 5 The upward bias is most extreme for results achieving P < .05 when statistical power is low; Button et al 18 call this phenomenon the winner's curse (see R code for an example).…”
Section: Further Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adjustments for multiple testing and control of the familywise error rate or false discovery rate are critical when one is using hypothesis testing across multiple risk factors. 7,17 As mentioned earlier, when multiple predictors are of interest and the familywise error rate is not controlled through adjustments for multiple comparisons, CIs are the recommended method of analysis. For simplicity of illustration, no results presented here were adjusted for multiple comparisons.…”
Section: Further Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%