Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

<br/><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.<br/><str...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kempf, E, De Beyer, JA, Cook, J, Holmes, J, Mohammed, S, Nguyên, T-L, Simera, I, Trivella, M, Altman, DG, Hopewell, S, Moons, KGM, Porcher, R, Reitsma, JB, Sauerbrei, W, Collins, GS
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: Springer Nature 2018
_version_ 1826305563299938304
author Kempf, E
De Beyer, JA
Cook, J
Holmes, J
Mohammed, S
Nguyên, T-L
Simera, I
Trivella, M
Altman, DG
Hopewell, S
Moons, KGM
Porcher, R
Reitsma, JB
Sauerbrei, W
Collins, GS
author_facet Kempf, E
De Beyer, JA
Cook, J
Holmes, J
Mohammed, S
Nguyên, T-L
Simera, I
Trivella, M
Altman, DG
Hopewell, S
Moons, KGM
Porcher, R
Reitsma, JB
Sauerbrei, W
Collins, GS
author_sort Kempf, E
collection OXFORD
description <br/><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.<br/><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty).<br/><strong>Results: </strong>Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1–Q3, 1–7). The prognostic factors’ effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions.<br/><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T06:34:44Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:f7329014-e352-458e-adcd-f56cb0ca074c
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T06:34:44Z
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Nature
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:f7329014-e352-458e-adcd-f56cb0ca074c2022-03-27T12:41:10ZOverinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic reviewJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f7329014-e352-458e-adcd-f56cb0ca074cEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer Nature2018Kempf, EDe Beyer, JACook, JHolmes, JMohammed, SNguyên, T-LSimera, ITrivella, MAltman, DGHopewell, SMoons, KGMPorcher, RReitsma, JBSauerbrei, WCollins, GS<br/><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.<br/><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty).<br/><strong>Results: </strong>Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1–Q3, 1–7). The prognostic factors’ effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions.<br/><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.
spellingShingle Kempf, E
De Beyer, JA
Cook, J
Holmes, J
Mohammed, S
Nguyên, T-L
Simera, I
Trivella, M
Altman, DG
Hopewell, S
Moons, KGM
Porcher, R
Reitsma, JB
Sauerbrei, W
Collins, GS
Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title_full Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title_fullStr Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title_short Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review
title_sort overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology a systematic review
work_keys_str_mv AT kempfe overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT debeyerja overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT cookj overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT holmesj overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT mohammeds overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT nguyentl overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT simerai overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT trivellam overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT altmandg overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT hopewells overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT moonskgm overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT porcherr overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT reitsmajb overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT sauerbreiw overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview
AT collinsgs overinterpretationandmisreportingofprognosticfactorstudiesinoncologyasystematicreview