Statistical Literacy Among Academic Pathologists A Survey Study to Gauge Knowledge of Frequently Used Statistical Tests Among Trainees and Faculty Robert L. Schmidt, MD, PhD, MBA; Deborah J. Chute, MD; Jorie M. Colbert-Getz, PhD; Adolfo Firpo-Betancourt, MD, MPA; Daniel S. James, MSIS; Julie K. Karp, MD; Douglas C. Miller, MD, PhD; Danny A. Milner Jr, MD, MSc; Kristi J. Smock, MD; Ann T. Sutton, MD; Brandon S. Walker, MS; Kristie L. White, MD, MAEd; Andrew R. Wilson, MStat, PhD; Eva M. Wojcik, MD; Marwan A. Yared, MD; Rachel E. Factor, MD, MHS  Context.—Statistical literacy can be defined as under- standing the statistical tests and terminology needed for the design, analysis, and conclusions of original research or laboratory testing. Little is known about the statistical literacy of clinical or anatomic pathologists. Objective.—To determine the statistical methods most commonly used in pathology studies from the literature and to assess familiarity and knowledge level of these statistical tests by pathology residents and practicing pathologists. Design.—The most frequently used statistical methods were determined by a review of 1100 research articles published in 11 pathology journals during 2015. Familiar- ity with statistical methods was determined by a survey of pathology trainees and practicing pathologists at 9 academic institutions in which pathologists were asked to rate their knowledge of the methods identified by the focused review of the literature. Results.—We identified 18 statistical tests that appear frequently in published pathology studies. On average, pathologists reported a knowledge level between ‘‘no knowledge’’ and ‘‘basic knowledge’’ of most statistical tests. Knowledge of tests was higher for more frequently used tests. Greater statistical knowledge was associated with a focus on clinical pathology versus anatomic pathology, having had a statistics course, having an advanced degree other than an MD degree, and publishing research. Statistical knowledge was not associated with length of pathology practice. Conclusions.—An audit of pathology literature reveals that knowledge of about 12 statistical tests would be sufficient to provide statistical literacy for pathologists. On average, most pathologists report they can interpret commonly used tests but are unable to perform them. Most pathologists indicated that they would benefit from additional statistical training. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:279–287; doi: 10.5858/ arpa.2016-0200-OA) T he practice of both clinical and anatomic pathology requires familiarity with statistical concepts. The use of sophisticated statistical methods is vital for the modern academic pathologist from nearly all pathology disciplines, ranging from the critical appraisal of evidence and interpretation of results as dictated by evidence-based medicine (EBM), research (eg, genomics, biomarker studies, translational research, and health services research), and for laboratory operations, quality assurance, and improvement initiatives. All pathologists are also now required to complete a quality improvement project, which requires statistical knowledge for maintenance of certification. Additionally, reviewing manuscripts for journals requires some basic level of statistical familiarity to ensure that the data analysis methods presented in manuscripts are appropriate to address a research question and support the inferences made by authors. Accepted for publication July 1, 2016. Published as an Early Online Release December 13, 2016. Supplemental digital content is available for this article at www. archivesofpathology.org in the February 2017 table of contents. From the Department of Pathology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, and ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah (Drs Schmidt, Smock, and Factor); the Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Chute); the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Dr Colbert-Getz); the Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (Dr Firpo- Betancourt); the Departments of Marketing (Mr James) and Infor- matics (Mr Walker), ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah; the Department of Pathology, Anatomy, and Cell Biology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Dr Karp); the Department of Pathology & Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia (Dr Miller); the Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Milner); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina (Dr Sutton); the Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco (Dr White); College of Nursing, Health Sciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Dr Wilson); the Department of Pathology, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois (Dr Wojcik); and the Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (Dr Yared). The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. Reprints: Robert L. Schmidt, MD, PhD, MBA, Department of Pathology, 15 N Medical Drive East, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (email: Robert.Schmidt@hsc.utah.edu). Arch Pathol Lab Med—Vol 141, February 2017 Statistical Literacy Among Pathologists—Schmidt et al 279