Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines
Background: Poor reporting compromises the reliability and clinical value of prognostic tumour marker studies. We review articles to assess the reporting of patients and events using REMARK guidelines, at the time of guideline publication. Methods: We sampled 50 prognostic tumour marker studies from...
| Główni autorzy: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Kolejni autorzy: | |
| Format: | Journal article |
| Język: | English |
| Wydane: |
Nature Publishing Group
2010
|
| Hasła przedmiotowe: |
| _version_ | 1826263543410851840 |
|---|---|
| author | Mallett, S Timmer, A Sauerbrei, W Altman, D |
| author2 | Cancer Research UK |
| author_facet | Cancer Research UK Mallett, S Timmer, A Sauerbrei, W Altman, D |
| author_sort | Mallett, S |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Background: Poor reporting compromises the reliability and clinical value of prognostic tumour marker studies. We review articles to assess the reporting of patients and events using REMARK guidelines, at the time of guideline publication. Methods: We sampled 50 prognostic tumour marker studies from higher impact cancer journals between 2006 and 2007. The inclusion criteria were cancer; focus on single biological tumour marker; survival analysis; multivariable analysis; and not gene array or proteomic data. Articles were assessed for the REMARK profile and other REMARK guideline items. We propose a reporting aid, the REMARK profile, motivated by the CONSORT flowchart. Results: In 50 studies assessed for the REMARK profile, the number of eligible patients (56% of articles), excluded patients (54%) and patients in analyses (98%) was reported. Only 50% of articles reported the number of outcome events. In multivariable analyses, 54% and 30% of articles reported patient and event numbers for all variables. Of the studies, 66% used archival samples, indicating a potentially biased patient selection. Only 36% of studies reported clearly defined outcomes. Conclusions: Good reporting is critical for the interpretability and clinical applicability of prognostic studies. Current reporting of key information, such as the number of outcome events in all patients and subgroups, is poor. Use of the REMARK profile would greatly improve reporting and enhance prognostic research. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:53:27Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:24c0d5dc-4c26-43b9-8f6e-90b4f4fc93e5 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:53:27Z |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:24c0d5dc-4c26-43b9-8f6e-90b4f4fc93e52022-03-26T11:51:52ZReporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelinesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:24c0d5dc-4c26-43b9-8f6e-90b4f4fc93e5Medical sciencesStatistics (see also social sciences)EnglishOxford University Research Archive - ValetNature Publishing Group2010Mallett, STimmer, ASauerbrei, WAltman, DCancer Research UKBackground: Poor reporting compromises the reliability and clinical value of prognostic tumour marker studies. We review articles to assess the reporting of patients and events using REMARK guidelines, at the time of guideline publication. Methods: We sampled 50 prognostic tumour marker studies from higher impact cancer journals between 2006 and 2007. The inclusion criteria were cancer; focus on single biological tumour marker; survival analysis; multivariable analysis; and not gene array or proteomic data. Articles were assessed for the REMARK profile and other REMARK guideline items. We propose a reporting aid, the REMARK profile, motivated by the CONSORT flowchart. Results: In 50 studies assessed for the REMARK profile, the number of eligible patients (56% of articles), excluded patients (54%) and patients in analyses (98%) was reported. Only 50% of articles reported the number of outcome events. In multivariable analyses, 54% and 30% of articles reported patient and event numbers for all variables. Of the studies, 66% used archival samples, indicating a potentially biased patient selection. Only 36% of studies reported clearly defined outcomes. Conclusions: Good reporting is critical for the interpretability and clinical applicability of prognostic studies. Current reporting of key information, such as the number of outcome events in all patients and subgroups, is poor. Use of the REMARK profile would greatly improve reporting and enhance prognostic research. |
| spellingShingle | Medical sciences Statistics (see also social sciences) Mallett, S Timmer, A Sauerbrei, W Altman, D Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title | Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title_full | Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title_fullStr | Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title_short | Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines |
| title_sort | reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers a review of published articles in relation to remark guidelines |
| topic | Medical sciences Statistics (see also social sciences) |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT malletts reportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersareviewofpublishedarticlesinrelationtoremarkguidelines AT timmera reportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersareviewofpublishedarticlesinrelationtoremarkguidelines AT sauerbreiw reportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersareviewofpublishedarticlesinrelationtoremarkguidelines AT altmand reportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersareviewofpublishedarticlesinrelationtoremarkguidelines |