In this QCast episode, co-hosts Jullia and Tom delve into Statistical Analysis Plans (SAPs) and their pivotal role in turning raw trial data into reliable, decision-ready evidence. They explore how a SAP translates protocol objectives and estimands into concrete analysis steps, defines derivations and data structures, and safeguards consistency from raw datasets to final outputs. The discussion walks through structure, timing, and quality control — from pre-lock versioning and interim analyses to traceability across SDTM and ADaM. Along the way, they share common pitfalls, best-practice workflows, and the habits that help teams maintain credibility, reproducibility, and regulatory confidence in every clinical analysis.
What a Statistical Analysis Plan Is and Why It Matters
A Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) is the detailed guide that defines how clinical trial data will be analysed to answer study objectives. It bridges the protocol, estimands, and programming, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and regulatory compliance across every step from raw data to results.
Designing a Clear and Aligned SAP
Begin with the protocol and estimand framework. Define analysis populations, conventions, and endpoints early, linking each estimand to its estimator and derivations. Structure the SAP logically — objectives, datasets, methods, shells, and quality control — so every analysis choice is justified and traceable.
Maintaining Rigour Through Control and Collaboration
Finalise the SAP before database lock and manage updates through controlled versioning. Involve statisticians, programmers, data managers, and writers in reviews to ensure consistency between the SAP, data management plan, and clinical outputs. Independent QC reduces errors and inspection findings.
Handling Interims, Missing Data, and Intercurrent Events
Predefine interim analysis methods, stopping rules, and firewall arrangements for independent oversight. Specify primary and sensitivity analyses for missing or intercurrent data, aligned with the estimand strategy, to preserve interpretability and credibility.
Ensuring Traceability and Compliance
Map derivations clearly from raw datasets through SDTM and ADaM. Maintain audit trails, version control, and secure, validated systems. Regulators expect a clear chain from protocol to SAP to outputs — with transparent, defensible analyses and consistent documentation.
Quick Tips and Common Pitfalls
Write methods in plain language; clarity beats complexity. Lock shells early, document derivations precisely, and avoid late, data-driven changes. Treat the SAP as the foundation for reproducibility — when written well, it makes every analysis faster, cleaner, and easier to defend.
Jullia
Welcome to QCast, the show where biometric expertise meets data-driven dialogue. I’m Jullia.
Tom
I’m Tom, and in each episode, we dive into the methodologies, case studies, regulatory shifts, and industry trends shaping modern drug development.
Jullia
Whether you’re in biotech, pharma or life sciences, we’re here to bring you practical insights straight from a leading biometrics CRO. Let’s get started.
Tom
Today, we are discussing statistical analysis plans. Before we get into the mechanics, why don’t you set the scene for us, Jullia. What is a Statistical Analysis Plan, why does it exist, and where does it sit in the study documentation stack?
Jullia
Thanks, Tom. A Statistical Analysis Plan, or SAP, is the detailed blueprint for how trial data will be analysed to answer the study objectives. It translates the protocol and the estimand framework into specific data derivations, analysis sets, statistical methods, handling of missing data and intercurrent events, presentation standards, and even quality checks. It sits downstream of the protocol and upstream of programming, table shells, and the clinical study report. Regulators expect a clear, version-controlled SAP that is traceable to the protocol and consistent with good clinical practice. It assigns roles and timelines, define data sources and standards, outline model choices, and lay out decision rules for sensitivity and subgroup work. A good SAP reduces ambiguity, protects against analysis bias, and helps the team deliver consistent, reproducible results.
Tom
You mentioned estimands. Many teams still struggle to link estimands to analysis choices. How do you ensure the SAP carries the estimand through to estimators, datasets, and displays without drift?
Jullia
Start by restating each estimand exactly as agreed: population, variable, how intercurrent events are handled, and the summary measure. In the SAP, map each estimand to the target estimator and to the derived variables that feed it. For example, if the strategy is treatment policy for rescue medication, the SAP should state that efficacy analyses will not censor or adjust for rescue and will include all post-rescue data by design. If the strategy is hypothetical for treatment discontinuation, the SAP needs a justified modelling approach, such as multiple imputation under a plausible mechanism. The SAP should also flag when proportional hazards are not expected and recommend alternatives like restricted mean survival time. Finally, ensure table shells and analysis flags align to the estimand, so the programming flow from raw data to SDTM and ADaM is coherent and auditable.
Tom
Thanks, Jullia. That leads nicely to structure. Walk us through the core sections you expect to see in a strong statistical analysis plan and the level of detail that is appropriate.
Jullia
I look for a logical, modular structure. Begin with scope, study overview, objectives, and estimands. Define analysis populations, typically the safety set, full analysis set, and per-protocol set, with explicit inclusion rules. Describe data standards and sources, including CDISC structures like SDTM and ADaM. Then set out general conventions: analysis visit windows, baseline definitions, outlier handling, multiplicity control, and data handling rules for missing and intercurrent events. The methodologies section details models for each endpoint class: continuous, binary, time-to-event, and longitudinal, with diagnostics and sensitivity analyses. Include interim analysis logic and unblinding safeguards where relevant. Add clearly formatted shells for tables, listings, and figures, with footnotes that explain denominators, flags, and rounding. Close with programming standards, quality control, traceability expectations, and a change-control approach. Each method should be justified, not just named.
Tom
Timelines can get messy. When should teams lock the SAP, and how do you manage amendments without undermining credibility?
Jullia
Aim to finalise the SAP before the first patient’s data are at risk of informing analysis choices. Practically, sign off before database soft lock, and earlier if an interim is planned. If changes are unavoidable, use disciplined change control. Document the rationale, impact, and who approved the revision. If new knowledge arises late, distinguish between pre-specified analyses and unplanned, clearly labelling the latter as exploratory. Keep version history transparent and ensure programming, validation, and medical writing all work from the same version. The principle is simple: do not let outcome data drive analytic decisions. Credibility rests on a clean audit trail, limited late changes, and consistent shells.
Tom
Let’s get specific about data. What are your expectations for derivations, flags, and analysis datasets in the SAP, and how tightly should they reference CDISC conventions?
Jullia
The SAP should describe derivations at a level that removes guesswork. That includes baseline definitions by domain, visit windows and imputation rules, censoring logic, and algorithmic steps for key derived variables like change from baseline and responder status. Reference CDISC analysis standards and specify the ADaM structures to be produced, such as ADSL, ADLB, ADAS, ADAE, and time-to-event datasets. Link each derivation to source variables and feasible business rules. Analysis flags must be unambiguous. For example, define analysis visit flags, treatment emergence flags for safety, and death imputation rules where needed. The result is a transparent path from raw through SDTM to ADaM to final displays. That clarity lets programmers code consistently and validators reproduce results.
Tom
Interims and data monitoring committees add extra complexity. What does a sound SAP say about interim looks, stopping boundaries, and blinding?
Jullia
Keep it precise and proportionate. For planned interims, state the timing metric, such as information fraction or event count, and the statistical framework for error spending. Describe roles and firewalls, so only the independent data monitoring committee sees unblinded comparative data. Include the outputs that will be produced, limited to what the committee needs for decision-making. Predefine stopping boundaries for futility and efficacy if applicable, and how adjustments to the final analysis will preserve type one error. Spell out operational safeguards for data transfer, code review, and storage. If there is only safety surveillance without formal stopping, say so and keep outputs descriptive. This avoids surprises and preserves trial integrity.
Tom
Teams also ask about graphics and displays. What guidance should the SAP provide for figures, not just tables, to ensure consistency and interpretability?
Jullia
Figures deserve first-class treatment. The SAP should provide shells and conventions for Kaplan-Meier curves, forest plots, longitudinal profiles, and safety visualisations. Define axes, censoring symbols, confidence interval conventions, and handling of overplotting. Specify the population and time windows for each plot and the exact summary displayed, such as median survival with confidence intervals or restricted means. Include instructions on handling outliers and lab grade thresholds for safety graphics. Figures must match the estimand and the narrative intent, not just be decorative. Setting standards early avoids last-minute redesigns and errors.
Tom
Moving on, what does good quality control look like around a SAP, both before programming starts and when outputs are being produced?
Jullia
Before programming, run a document quality control that checks internal consistency: estimands align with objectives, analysis sets match shells, and derivations are feasible. Verify references to standards, abbreviations, and terminology. During output production, require independent code verification or dual programming for critical endpoints, plus a documented reconciliation between shells and produced tables. Use annotated shells that track footnotes, denominators, and rounding rules. Maintain a live issues log, with classification by severity and clear resolution. At the database lock stage, ensure the SAP version in use matches the validated code base, and archive everything with traceability. These steps protect both accuracy and speed.
Tom
Digital traceability and data integrity remain front of mind. What baseline expectations should teams assume regulators will assess in relation to the SAP and its implementation?
Jullia
Assume a focus on audit trails, role-based access, version control, and reproducibility. Regulators look for a clear chain from protocol to SAP to code to outputs. They expect validated systems for programming and secure storage of analysis datasets. They also expect transparency about planned and unplanned analyses, with the latter marked as exploratory. Traceable derivations and consistent denominators are table stakes. If interim analyses occur, firewalls and documentation of who saw what and when are important. Keep personal data minimised in analysis files and follow established data protection practices. A clean, consistent SAP supported by good documentation makes these reviews straightforward.
Tom
Some listeners will be preparing their first SAP. What are the quick wins for a solid first draft, and the pitfalls that trip up even experienced teams?
Jullia
Quick wins include starting with a clear estimand table, drafting population definitions early, and writing the general conventions section before diving into methods. Lock your shells sooner than you think since they drive programming scope and timelines. Keep derivations explicit and avoid vague phrases like clinical judgement unless criteria exist. Common pitfalls include under-specifying handling of intercurrent events, ignoring multiplicity when there are several endpoints, and letting table shells float away from the narrative. Do not specify methods that data collection cannot support, and resist late, data-driven tweaks. Discipline and clarity beat cleverness every time.
Tom
Could you summarise the core takeaways for someone about to revise their SAP next week?
Jullia
Begin with the estimands and write them in plain language. Define analysis populations and general conventions early, then build endpoint-specific methods. Align shells, derivations, and flags so programming can start with confidence. Fix handling of missing data and intercurrent events up front, and list targeted sensitivity analyses. Keep version control tight and changes justified. Plan quality control as part of the workflow, not an afterthought. Finally, make every choice explainable to a clinical audience. If you can tell the story clearly, your SAP is doing its job.
Tom
Looking ahead, what sensible evolutions do you see in how teams write and use SAPs, especially with growing data complexity and decentralised elements?
Jullia
I see two directions. First, more explicit linkage between estimands and operational data, for example, pre-specified device compliance metrics or visit window rules that reflect decentralised visits. That avoids misclassification later. Second, more reusable components: standard derivations, visual shells, and code templates that are adapted but controlled. This accelerates delivery while maintaining traceability. I also expect wider use of sensitivity frameworks that are transparent about assumptions, rather than defaulting to single-model answers. Through all of that, the basics remain the same: clear prose, justified methods, and disciplined change control. Tools will evolve, but clarity and rigour will continue to win.
With that, we’ve come to the end of today’s episode on Statistical Analysis Plans. If you found this discussion useful, don’t forget to subscribe to QCast so you never miss an episode and share it with a colleague. And if you’d like to learn more about how Quanticate supports data-driven solutions in clinical trials, head to our website or get in touch.
Tom
Thanks for tuning in, and we’ll see you in the next episode.
QCast by Quanticate is the podcast for biotech, pharma, and life science leaders looking to deepen their understanding of biometrics and modern drug development. Join co-hosts Tom and Jullia as they explore methodologies, case studies, regulatory shifts, and industry trends shaping the future of clinical research. Where biometric expertise meets data-driven dialogue, QCast delivers practical insights and thought leadership to inform your next breakthrough.
Subscribe to QCast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to never miss an episode.
Bring your drugs to market with fast and reliable access to experts from one of the world’s largest global biometric Clinical Research Organizations.
© 2025 Quanticate