gms | German Medical Science

62. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e. V. (GMDS)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie

17.09. - 21.09.2017, Oldenburg

Tumour marker prognostic studies: Evidence for poor reporting and its effect on data synthesis

Meeting Abstract

  • Peggy Sekula - Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland
  • Susan Mallett - University of Birmingham, Birmingham, Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland
  • Julia Pressler - Schön-Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Deutschland
  • Bernd Schmitz-Dräger - Schön-Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Deutschland
  • Peter Goebell - Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien gGmbH, Erlangen, Deutschland
  • Douglas G Altman - University of Oxford, Oxford, Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland
  • Willi Sauerbrei - Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie. 62. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS). Oldenburg, 17.-21.09.2017. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2017. DocAbstr. 235

doi: 10.3205/17gmds095, urn:nbn:de:0183-17gmds0956

Published: August 29, 2017

© 2017 Sekula et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Although biomarkers are perceived as highly relevant for future clinical practice, few biomarkers reach clinical utility for several reasons. Among them, poor reporting of studies is one of the major problems. With respect to tumour marker prognostic studies, a survey provided evidence on the poor situation [1]. To aid improvement for such type of observational studies, the reporting guideline REMARK was introduced several years ago [2].

Besides incomplete understanding or even misunderstanding caused by incomplete descriptions regarding design, methods and results, poor reporting effects data syntheses across studies. In a recent project on the prognostic potential of p53 (measured by immunohistochemistry) in bladder cancer, the attempt to combine evidence from several studies failed because of both methodological and reporting issues [3]. In areas like prognostic research that heavily rely on observational studies, good reporting is of major importance. Only if relevant details are clearly and transparently reported, results can be correctly interpreted, strengths and weaknesses of studies can fully acknowledged.

Unfortunately, even several years after the introduction of REMARK, we documented that reporting of a large amount of more recent publications, even if authors cite the REMARK guideline, is still poor. Not much improvement was seen. Many key items are still not or insufficiently explained. A combined effort is urgently needed from authors, editors, reviewers and methodologists to improve the current situation. Good reporting is not just nice to have but is essential for any research to be useful.

Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Ethikvotum erforderlich ist.


Literatur

1.
Mallett S, Timmer A, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(1):173-80. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605462 External link
2.
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM; Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer. 2005;93(4):387-91.
3.
Sekula P, Pressler JB, Sauerbrei W, Goebell PJ, Schmitz-Dräger BJ. Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e009972. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009972 External link