290
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

          The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                02 August 2005
                16 August 2005
                22 August 2005
                : 93
                : 4
                : 387-391
                Affiliations
                [1 ]US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
                [2 ]Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK
                [3 ]Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany
                [4 ]Centro Regionale Indicatori Biochimici di Tumoure, Ospedale Civile, 30122 Venezia, Italy
                [5 ]OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boulder, CO 80301, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: Lm5h@ 123456nih.gov
                []

                In order to encourage dissemination of the guidelines set out in this paper, it is freely accessible on the BJC website ( www.bjcancer.com), and will also be published simultaneously in the European Journal of Cancer, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

                [6]

                Members of the Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI/EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics: Douglas G Altman DSc (Co-chair), Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK; Lisa M McShane, PhD (Co-chair), US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA; Gary M Clark, PhD, OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boulder, CO 80301, USA; Jose Costa, MD, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT 06510-3202, USA; Angelo Di Leo, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, Hospital of Prato, 59100 Prato, Italy; Massimo Gion, MD, Centro Regionale Indicatori Biochimici di Tumoure, Ospedale Civile, 30122 Venezia, ItalyRobert J Mayer, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Willi Sauerbrei, PhD, Institut fuer Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; Sheila E Taube, Ph.D., US National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA

                Article
                6602678
                10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678
                2361579
                16106245
                24ca58cf-d959-4797-91e0-8050afbeec69
                Copyright 2005, Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 05 January 2005
                : 18 May 2005
                : 25 May 2005
                Categories
                Guidelines

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                nci,remark,prognostic,tumour marker,eortc,guidelines
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                nci, remark, prognostic, tumour marker, eortc, guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article