Browsing by Author "Khalatbari, Shokoufeh"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    79 How do you share documents with collaborators external to your institution?
    (Cambridge University Press, 2025-04-11) Khalatbari, Shokoufeh; Perkins, Susan; Thurston, Sally; Bugden, Jane; Spino, Cathie; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    Objectives/Goals: Using secure systems for sharing documents with external collaborators is essential for all researchers. These documents may include protected health information (PHI) or sensitive materials like protocols, study reports, DSMB reports, publications, presentations, abstracts, and statistical analysis plans (SAPs). Methods/Study Population: We surveyed the ACTS Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group (BERD-SIG) to gather information about the systems they are currently using or have used in the past for document sharing with external collaborators. The survey focused on the security of these systems, particularly in relation to sharing documents containing PHI. In addition, the survey included questions about various system features of interest. These features included version control, simultaneous editing by multiple users, and access rights management, such as the ability to assign different permissions (e.g., read-only, write, and download) to different individuals. We also invited participants to provide feedback on any additional positive or negative aspects of the systems they use. Results/Anticipated Results: We received 28 completed survey responses. Respondents had an option for choosing more than one system. The top current systems reported were Microsoft Teams (OneDrive, SharePoint) (n = 16), Box (n = 11), Google Docs/Drive (n = 10), and Dropbox (n = 6). Among other systems listed individually were Filelocker, REDCap, Slack, Website, Significant Media Shuttle, and Zulip. Notably, 15 responses indicated the respondents were unsure if their system is secure for sharing documents containing PHI. Respondents also offered feedback on both the positive and negative aspects of these systems. For example, a key advantage of Box was its password-controlled access. However, its incompatibility with office tools and the challenges for external collaborators attempting to access the system were noted as drawbacks. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Utilizing secure institutional document-sharing systems and understanding their features significantly affects the effectiveness and security of collaborations among researchers, particularly with external partners. This knowledge is especially crucial when sharing documents containing sensitive patient and study data.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Guidance for biostatisticians on their essential contributions to clinical and translational research protocol review
    (Cambridge University Press, 2021-07-12) Ciolino, Jody D.; Spino, Cathie; Ambrosius, Walter T.; Khalatbari, Shokoufeh; Messinger Cayetano, Shari; Lapidus, Jodi A.; Nietert, Paul J.; Oster, Robert A.; Perkins, Susan M.; Pollock, Brad H.; Pomann, Gina-Maria; Price, Lori Lyn; Rice, Todd W.; Tosteson, Tor D.; Lindsell, Christopher J.; Spratt, Heidi; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, School of Medicine
    Rigorous scientific review of research protocols is critical to making funding decisions, and to the protection of both human and non-human research participants. Given the increasing complexity of research designs and data analysis methods, quantitative experts, such as biostatisticians, play an essential role in evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of proposed methods. However, there is a common misconception that a statistician’s input is relevant only to sample size/power and statistical analysis sections of a protocol. The comprehensive nature of a biostatistical review coupled with limited guidance on key components of protocol review motived this work. Members of the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science used a consensus approach to identify the elements of research protocols that a biostatistician should consider in a review, and provide specific guidance on how each element should be reviewed. We present the resulting review framework as an educational tool and guideline for biostatisticians navigating review boards and panels. We briefly describe the approach to developing the framework, and we provide a comprehensive checklist and guidance on review of each protocol element. We posit that the biostatistical reviewer, through their breadth of engagement across multiple disciplines and experience with a range of research designs, can and should contribute significantly beyond review of the statistical analysis plan and sample size justification. Through careful scientific review, we hope to prevent excess resource expenditure and risk to humans and animals on poorly planned studies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prospective multicenter assessment of patient preferences for properties of gadolinium-based contrast media and their potential socioeconomic impact in a screening breast MRI setting
    (Springer, 2021-12) Woolen, Sean A.; Troost, Jonathan P.; Khalatbari, Shokoufeh; Pujara, Akshat C.; McDonald, Jennifer S.; McDonald, Robert J.; Shankar, Prasad; Lewin, Alana A.; Melsaether, Amy N.; Westphal, Steven M.; Patterson, Katherine H.; Nettles, Ashley; Welby, John P.; Patel, Parth Pradip; Kiros, Neud; Piccoli, Lisa; Davenport, Matthew S.; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine
    Objective: It is unknown how patients prioritize gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) benefits (detection sensitivity) and risks (reactions, gadolinium retention, cost). The purpose of this study is to measure preferences for properties of GBCM in women at intermediate or high risk of breast cancer undergoing annual screening MRI. Methods: An institutional reviewed board-approved prospective discrete choice conjoint survey was administered to patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing screening MRI at 4 institutions (July 2018-March 2020). Participants were given 15 tasks and asked to choose which of two hypothetical GBCM they would prefer. GBCMs varied by the following attributes: sensitivity for cancer detection (80-95%), intracranial gadolinium retention (1-100 molecules per 100 million administered), severe allergic-like reaction rate (1-19 per 100,000 administrations), mild allergic-like reaction rate (10-1000 per 100,000 administrations), out-of-pocket cost ($25-$100). Attribute levels were based on published values of existing GBCMs. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to derive attribute "importance." Preference shares were determined by simulation. Results: Response (87% [247/284]) and completion (96% [236/247]) rates were excellent. Sensitivity (importance = 44.3%, 95% confidence interval = 42.0-46.7%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic-like reaction risk (19.5%, 17.9-21.1%), severe allergic-like reaction risk (17.0%, 15.8-18.1%), intracranial gadolinium retention (11.6%, 10.5-12.7%), out-of-pocket expense (7.5%, 6.8-8.3%)). Lower income participants placed more importance on cost and less on sensitivity (p < 0.01). A simulator is provided that models GBCM preference shares by GBCM attributes and competition. Conclusions: Patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing MRI screening prioritize cancer detection over GBCM-related risks, and prioritize reaction risks over gadolinium retention. Key points: • Among women undergoing annual breast MRI screening, cancer detection sensitivity (attribute "importance," 44.3%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic reaction risk 19.5%, severe allergic reaction risk 17.0%, intracranial gadolinium retention 11.6%, out-of-pocket expense 7.5%). • Prospective four-center patient preference data have been incorporated into a GBCM choice simulator that allows users to input GBCM properties and calculate patient preference shares for competitor GBCMs. • Lower-income women placed more importance on out-of-pocket cost and less importance on cancer detection (p < 0.01) when prioritizing GBCM properties.