PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: A review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Mallett, S.* ; Timmer, A. ; Sauerbrei, W.* ; Altman, D.G.*

Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: A review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines.

Br. J. Cancer 102, 173-180 (2010)

DOI

PMC

Open Access Green möglich sobald Postprint bei der ZB eingereicht worden ist.

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

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.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

4.346

1.650

103