Analysis code review record
===========================

StatMedAnalysis | Original downloadable worksheet | 6 November 2026

Make an independent code review reproducible and actionable.

How to use this worksheet
Freeze the revision and define the review scope. Trace key inputs through exclusions,
transformations and outputs. Review scientific assumptions as well as syntax, and
distinguish questions from confirmed defects. Require a rerun after corrections and
retain unresolved findings.

Save a working copy and keep the original blank version. Use public, hypothetical or
aggregate information only; do not enter patient identifiers, credentials or confidential
records. Keep source evidence in your approved project workspace. Mark unresolved text
fields UNKNOWN or NOT REPORTED with a reason; never substitute zero for an unknown count.

Project/version __________________  Prepared by role/date __________________

Working fields
1. Code revision and scope
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Input/output contract
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. Exclusion and transformation checks
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

4. Scientific-method checks
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

5. Confirmed issue and evidence
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

6. Suggested correction and owner
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

7. Retest result
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8. Remaining limitation and disposition
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Hypothetical worked case
A fictional review finds that an analysis script drops all rows with any missing field,
including unused variables. The reviewer records the affected denominator and asks
whether that matches the analysis-specific population.

Decision rule and limitations
Close findings only after the revised code and outputs are checked. A review signature
should identify what was reviewed rather than imply blanket approval of every project
component.

Decision _______________________  Remaining uncertainty ____________________
Next action ____________________  Owner / review date ______________________
Independent check and discrepancy resolution _______________________________

Official method or reporting reference checked 6 November 2026
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff

This is an original planning aid, not an official checklist, validated instrument,
clinical recommendation or certificate of expert approval. Apply the referenced
guidance to the specific design and record any additional requirements.