Search

We describe an innovative, semester-long course in biology and communication skills for master's degree students in biostatistics. The primary goal of the course is to make the connection between biological science and statistics more explicit. The secondary goals are to teach oral and written communication skills in an appropriate context for applied biostatisticians, and to teach a structured approach to thinking that enables students to become lifelong learners in biology, study design, and the application of statistics to biomedical research. Critical evaluation of medical literature is the method used to teach biology and communication. Exercises are constructivist in nature, designed to be hands-on and encourage reflection through writing and oral communication. A single disease area (cancer) provides a motivating example to: (1) introduce students to the most commonly used study designs in medical and public health research, (2) illustrate how study design is used to address questions about human biology and disease, (3) teach basic biological concepts necessary for a successful career in biostatistics, and (4) train students to read and critically evaluate publications in peer-reviewed journals. We describe the design and features of the course, the intended audience, and provide detailed examples for instructors interested in designing similar courses.

Student evaluation is a key consideration for educational program administrators because program success depends on students' ability to demonstrate successful development of core competencies. Student evaluations must therefore be aligned with learning objectives and overall program goals. Graduate level educational programs typically incorporate course-level and program-level evaluations, e.g., a final examination in a single course vs. a qualifying examination that assesses knowledge gained from several courses. While there is often considerable attention given to the structure of these evaluations at the program level, the format is typically left to the instructor's discretion. We argue in this article that there are administrative advantages to encouraging instructors to adopt creative forms of assessment that extend beyond the typical concerns related to program structure. Specifically, we argue that advantages can be gained in terms of increasing student engagement, adding real world context to student evaluations, maintaining positive program culture, and reducing the opportunity for cheating. We present two examples of creative assessments implemented in a 2-year Master of Biostatistics program, along with a discussion of three key questions administrators should consider as they work with instructors to develop innovative assessment methods: (1) what changes to make; (2) in what order to make those changes; and (3) how to consult with instructors about making those changes.

We describe an innovative preorientation curriculum (POC) for a Master of Biostatistics (MB) program. The goal of the POC is to fill critical skills gaps for students entering the MB program from heterogeneous backgrounds so they are prepared to engage in the program's rigorous, fast-paced training upon arrival. To achieve this goal, we introduce a structured approach to thinking that forms the foundation of a sound mental map of Biostatistics, which will assist students in their subsequent efforts to master the discipline. Based on constructivist principles, the POC covers mathematical and statistical theory, data analysis methods, programming, and statistical practice through a sequence of instruction that encourages reflection, extension, and connection between topics. The POC is modular, self-paced, and offered online via a cloud-hosted interactive learning management system (LMS). Students are required to complete the curriculum prior to the MB program orientation. We describe the rationale, design, features, and initial evaluation of the POC. Finally, to help programs interested in designing similar curricula, we provide a detailed instruction sequence description of one topic.

Biostatisticians apply statistical methods to solve problems in the biological sciences. Successful practioners of biostatistics have advanced technical knowledge, are skilled communicators, and can seamlesslessly integrate with interdisciplinary scientific teams. Despite the breadth of skills required for success in this field, most biostatistics education programs place heavier emphasis on development of technical skills than skills necessary for collaborative work, including critical thinking, writing, and public speaking. Our master's degree program in biostatistics aims for stronger integration of education in collaborative work alongside development of technical knowledge in biostatistics. Toward that end, we propose a model that provides students with a mental map for practicing biostatistics, and that can serve as a tool for faculty to create hands-on learning experiences for biostatistics students. The model helps students organize their knowledge of biostatistics, unifying the technical and collaborative aspects of the discipline in a single framework that can be applied across the broad array of activities that biostatisticians engage in. In this article we describe the model in detail and provide an initial assessment of whether the model might meet its intended purpose by applying the model to a common task for practicing biostatisticians and biostatistics students: describing the results of a medical research study.

The ability to bridge multiple disciplines is critical to the successful practice of collaborative statistics, yet the literature on statistical education devotes relatively little attention to how this skill can be taught. Our goal here is to describe a general conceptual framework within which a curriculum on communication and leadership could ultimately be organized. The primary research question pertains to whether an actionable model of cross-disciplinary communication for collaborative statisticians can be developed, and our task here is to describe such a model and also to illustrate its use. Within this model most communications either share or request information. For example, statisticians might provide information about statistics (e.g., specific statistical approaches, general statistical principles), comment on the clinician's understanding of statistics, share their understanding of clinical content, and request information (e.g., about clinical content, the design and execution of the study being discussed, etc.). Clinical investigators contribute an analogous set of components. In addition, a critical element to the interaction is the higher-level task of developing a mutually understood agreement about the work to be performed: in essence, proposing and negotiating such an agreement. The model is illustrated using a case study, and general qualitative feedback from investigators who performed the case study was obtained, commenting on both successful and unsuccessful interactions with statisticians. Implications for curriculum development are discussed.

Background A small proportion of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae demonstrate in vitro non-susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam but retain susceptibility to ceftriaxone. Uncertainty remains regarding how best to treat these isolates. Objectives We sought to compare clinical outcomes between patients with piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae bloodstream infection receiving definitive therapy with ceftriaxone versus an alternative effective antibiotic. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with a positive blood culture for piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022. Patients were divided into one of two definitive treatment groups: ceftriaxone or alternative effective antibiotic. Our primary outcome was a composite of 90 day all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or recurrence of infection. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare time with the composite outcome between groups. Results Sixty-two patients were included in our analysis. Overall, median age was 63 years (IQR 49.5–71.0), the most common source of infection was intra-abdominal (25/62; 40.3%) and the median total duration of therapy was 12.0 days (IQR 9.0–16.8). A total of 9/22 (40.9%) patients in the ceftriaxone treatment group and 18/40 (45.0%) patients in the alternative effective antibiotic group met the composite endpoint. In an adjusted time-to-event analysis, there was no difference in the composite endpoint between groups (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30–1.50). The adjusted Bayesian posterior probability that the HR was less than or equal to 1 (i.e. ceftriaxone is as good or better than alternative therapy) was 85%. Conclusions These findings suggest that ceftriaxone can be used to effectively treat bloodstream infections with E. coli or K. pneumoniae that are non-susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam but susceptible to ceftriaxone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With increased access to biomedical and electronic health records data and the complexity of research questions, individuals in residency programmes who aim to conduct research require specialized educational programmes and biostatistics support. Biostatistics collaboration units in academic health centres often work with residents to conduct data‐intensive research. These units face numerous challenges related to providing training in statistical literacy and collaborating on resident‐led research within very restricted timelines. Since 2019, the Duke Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Methods Core has supported over 247 resident‐led projects by developing tools and resources to address these challenges. This manuscript presents novel processes and training materials that other institutions can use to help biostatistics collaboration units effectively support resident training programmes. We provide a framework to support the development of collaborative teams, along with specialized training materials for residents who collaborate with these teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative quantitative scientists, including biostatisticians, epidemiologists, bioinformaticists, and data‐related professionals, play vital roles in research, from study design to data analysis and dissemination. It is imperative that academic health care centers (AHCs) establish an environment that provides opportunities for the quantitative scientists who are hired as staff to develop and advance their careers. With the rapid growth of clinical and translational research, AHCs are charged with establishing organizational methods, training tools, best practices, and guidelines to accelerate and support hiring, training, and retaining this staff workforce. This paper describes three essential elements for building and maintaining a successful unit of collaborative staff quantitative scientists in academic health care centers: (1) organizational infrastructure and management, (2) recruitment, and (3) career development and retention. Specific strategies are provided as examples of how AHCs can excel in these areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questionable research practices (QRP) are actions taken by researchers that span a range of concern related to violation of research best practices, and ultimately expose institutions and research participants to risk. Numerous studies have shown that QRP are common. The continued prevalence of QRP indicates that existing approaches for dealing with QRP are falling short. In this editorial we discuss the risks associated with QRP and propose mitigation strategies at the institutional level using a common QRP as an example, questionable treatment of subgroup analyses. We argue that the need for institutional intervention in cases such as this are particularly motivating when both the investigator and the institution have a substantial financial conflict of interest related to intellectual property that requires the investigator's expertise to continue developing. To address this, we propose an expansion of the traditional conflict of interest management process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]