Our concept rebalances the emphasis to studies in phases III and IV, that is, carefully planned method comparison studies and studies that explore the empirical properties of existing methods in a wider range of problems. Too many methodological developments finish before phase III/IV, but we give two examples with references. We suggest basic definitions of the four phases to provoke thought and discussion rather than devising an unambiguous classification of studies into phases. These four phases cover (I) proposing a new methodological idea while providing, for example, logical reasoning or proofs, (II) providing empirical evidence, first in a narrow target setting, then (III) in an extended range of settings and for various outcomes, accompanied by appropriate application examples, and (IV) investigations that establish a method as sufficiently well-understood to know when it is preferred over others and when it is not that is, its pitfalls. Similar to the well-known phases of clinical research in drug development, we propose to define four phases of methodological research. We propose a framework to think about how a piece of methodological work contributes to the evidence base for a method. Although new biostatistical methods are published at a very high rate, many of these developments are not trustworthy enough to be adopted by the scientific community.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |