↓ Skip to main content

Data sharing and the evolving role of statisticians

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Data sharing and the evolving role of statisticians
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0172-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nick Manamley, Steve Mallett, Matthew R. Sydes, Sally Hollis, Alison Scrimgeour, Hans Ulrich Burger, Hans-Joerg Urban

Abstract

Greater transparency and, in particular, sharing of clinical study reports and patient level data for further research is an increasingly important topic for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry and other organisations who sponsor and conduct clinical research as well as academic researchers and patient advocacy groups. Statisticians are ambassadors for data sharing and are central to its success. They play an integral role in data sharing discussions within their companies and also externally helping to shape policy and processes while providing input into practical solutions to aid data sharing. Data sharing is generating changes in the required profile for statisticians in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, as well as academic institutions and patient advocacy groups. Successful statisticians need to possess many qualities required in today's pharmaceutical environment such as collaboration, diplomacy, written and oral skills and an ability to be responsive; they are also knowledgeable when debating strategy and analytical techniques. However, increasing data transparency will require statisticians to evolve and learn new skills and behaviours during their career which may not have been an accepted part of the traditional role. Statisticians will move from being the gate-keepers of data to be data facilitators. To adapt successfully to this new environment, the role of the statistician is likely to be broader, including defining new responsibilities that lie beyond the boundaries of the traditional role. Statisticians should understand how data transparency can benefit them and the potential strategic advantage it can bring and be fully aware of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry commitments to data transparency and the policies within their company or research institute in addition to focusing on reviewing requests and provisioning data. Data transparency will evolve the role of statisticians within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, academia and research bodies to a level which may not have been an accepted part of their traditional role or career. In the future, skills will be required to manage challenges arising from data sharing; statisticians will need strong scientific and statistical guiding principles for reanalysis and supplementary analyses based on researchers' requests, have enhanced consultancy skills, in particular the ability to defend good statistical practice in the face of criticism and the ability to critique methods of analysis. Statisticians will also require expertise in data privacy regulations, data redaction and anonymisation and be able to assess the probability of re-identification, an ability to understand analyses conducted by researchers and recognise why such analyses may propose different results compared to the original analyses. Bringing these skills to the implementation of data sharing and interpretation of the results will help to maximise the value of shared data while guarding against misleading conclusions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Social Sciences 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,684,590
of 8,082,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#474
of 828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,178
of 259,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,082,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.