Reporting your results for publication according to guidelines

Presented at the 30th Annual EACTS Meeting, Barcelona, Spain (1-5 October 2016)

Transcript

1. How to perform more advanced statistics: basics and pitfalls Graeme L. Hickey Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool * No conflicts of interest
3. URL: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ejcts/for_authors/manuscript_instructions.html
4. Development and validation of risk prediction models Clinical randomized trials Systematic reviews and meta-analyses Comprehensive database of guidelines www.equator-network.org
5. URL: http://www.consort-statement.org Supplemental file for manuscript submission Manuscript figure
7. + corrigendum: Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg 2016;49:1024.
8. • Above all
9. Examples* of common ‘issues’ (which are covered in the EJCTS and ICVTS guidelines) * A somewhat haphazard collection
11. * Austin, P. C. (2007). Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 134(5), 1128–35.
12. à
13. Table 1. Patient and operative characteristics data by CPB technique with statistical comparison. 518 Overall On-pump Off-pump Δ (%) P Total number n=3402 n=1173 n=2229 Logistic EuroSCORE (%) 2.4 ± 2.5 2.4 ± 2.8 2.3 ± 2.3 1.8 0.965 Age (years) 61.7 ±10.6 61.1 ± 10.3 61.9 ± 10.7 -8.1 0.026 BMI (kg/m2) 28.5 ± 4.6 28.7 ± 4.7 28.4 ± 4.5 6.1 0.090 N % N % N % Female 880 25.9% 325 27.7% 555 24.9% 6.4 0.083 Preoperative AF 69 2.0% 28 2.4% 41 1.8% 3.8 0.343 Urgent 733 21.5% 271 23.1% 462 20.7% 5.7 0.119 NYHA III/IV 645 19.0% 225 19.2% 420 18.8% 0.9 0.846 History of neurological dysfunction 53 1.6% 25 2.1% 28 1.3% 6.8 0.070 Diabetes (insulin or diet controlled) 600 17.6% 207 17.6% 393 17.6% 0.0 >0.999 * Continuous data reported as mean ± standard deviation Percentages correctly rounded Appropriate and consistent precision Columns clearly labeled Notation defined Units included Number of subjects sum correctly
14. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Time CumSum An unacceptably presented Kaplan−Meier graph P<.05 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 Time from diagnosis (months) Survival probability Male Female 138 86 35 17 7 2 90 70 30 15 6 1 No. at risk + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ + ++ + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + An acceptably presented Kaplan−Meier graph Log−rank test P = 0.001
15. [1] https://www.biostat.wisc.edu/~kbroman/topten_worstgraphs/ [2] https://garstats.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/the-percentile-bootstrap/ • Statistical figures are for summarizing complex data • Readers will be drawn to them, so they need to be clearly presented • Label all axes – and report what is being shown
16. Interpreting randomized trial data: Tuesday 4th October 14:15 - 15:45
18. Editorial Board Friedhelm Beyersdorf (Editor-in- Chief) Joel Dunning (Associate Editor) Judy Gaillard (Managing Editor) Franziska Lueder (Editorial Manager) Assistant Editors (Statistical Consultants) Burkhardt Seifert Gottfried Sodeck Matthew J. Carr Hans Ulrich Burger Graeme L. Hickey + all other editorial members