Cargando…
REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16106245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678 |
_version_ | 1782153247448891392 |
---|---|
author | McShane, L M Altman, D G Sauerbrei, W Taube, S E Gion, M Clark, G M |
author_facet | McShane, L M Altman, D G Sauerbrei, W Taube, S E Gion, M Clark, G M |
author_sort | McShane, L M |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2361579 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2005 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23615792009-09-10 REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) McShane, L M Altman, D G Sauerbrei, W Taube, S E Gion, M Clark, G M Br J Cancer Guidelines 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. Nature Publishing Group 2005-08-22 2005-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC2361579/ /pubmed/16106245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678 Text en Copyright © 2005 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Guidelines McShane, L M Altman, D G Sauerbrei, W Taube, S E Gion, M Clark, G M REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title | REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title_full | REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title_fullStr | REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title_full_unstemmed | REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title_short | REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) |
title_sort | reporting recommendations for tumour marker prognostic studies (remark) |
topic | Guidelines |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16106245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcshanelm reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark AT altmandg reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark AT sauerbreiw reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark AT taubese reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark AT gionm reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark AT clarkgm reportingrecommendationsfortumourmarkerprognosticstudiesremark |