Cargando…

Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles

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. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sekula, Peggy, Mallett, Susan, Altman, Douglas G., Sauerbrei, Willi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5470677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178531
_version_ 1783243805916397568
author Sekula, Peggy
Mallett, Susan
Altman, Douglas G.
Sauerbrei, Willi
author_facet Sekula, Peggy
Mallett, Susan
Altman, Douglas G.
Sauerbrei, Willi
author_sort Sekula, Peggy
collection PubMed
description 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. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess whether reporting quality of TMP-studies improved in comparison to a previously conducted study assessing reporting quality of TMP-studies (PRE-study) and to assess whether articles citing REMARK (citing group) are better reported, in comparison to articles not citing REMARK (not-citing group). For the POST-study, recent articles citing and not citing REMARK (53 each) were identified in selected journals through systematic literature search and evaluated in same way as in the PRE-study. Ten of the 20 items of the REMARK checklist were evaluated and used to define an overall score of reporting quality. The observed overall scores were 53.4% (range: 10%-90%) for the PRE-study, 57.7% (range: 20%-100%) for the not-citing group and 58.1% (range: 30%-100%) for the citing group of the POST-study. While there is no difference between the two groups of the POST-study, the POST-study shows a slight but not relevant improvement in reporting relative to the PRE-study. Not all the articles of the citing group, cited REMARK appropriately. Irrespective of whether REMARK was cited, the overall score was slightly higher for articles published in journals requesting adherence to REMARK than for those published in journals not requesting it: 59.9% versus 51.9%, respectively. Several years after the introduction of REMARK, many key items of TMP-studies are still very poorly reported. A combined effort is 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5470677
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54706772017-07-03 Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles Sekula, Peggy Mallett, Susan Altman, Douglas G. Sauerbrei, Willi PLoS One Research Article 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. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess whether reporting quality of TMP-studies improved in comparison to a previously conducted study assessing reporting quality of TMP-studies (PRE-study) and to assess whether articles citing REMARK (citing group) are better reported, in comparison to articles not citing REMARK (not-citing group). For the POST-study, recent articles citing and not citing REMARK (53 each) were identified in selected journals through systematic literature search and evaluated in same way as in the PRE-study. Ten of the 20 items of the REMARK checklist were evaluated and used to define an overall score of reporting quality. The observed overall scores were 53.4% (range: 10%-90%) for the PRE-study, 57.7% (range: 20%-100%) for the not-citing group and 58.1% (range: 30%-100%) for the citing group of the POST-study. While there is no difference between the two groups of the POST-study, the POST-study shows a slight but not relevant improvement in reporting relative to the PRE-study. Not all the articles of the citing group, cited REMARK appropriately. Irrespective of whether REMARK was cited, the overall score was slightly higher for articles published in journals requesting adherence to REMARK than for those published in journals not requesting it: 59.9% versus 51.9%, respectively. Several years after the introduction of REMARK, many key items of TMP-studies are still very poorly reported. A combined effort is 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. Public Library of Science 2017-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5470677/ /pubmed/28614415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178531 Text en © 2017 Sekula et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sekula, Peggy
Mallett, Susan
Altman, Douglas G.
Sauerbrei, Willi
Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title_full Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title_fullStr Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title_full_unstemmed Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title_short Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles
title_sort did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of remark guideline? a comparison of reporting in published articles
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5470677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178531
work_keys_str_mv AT sekulapeggy didthereportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersimprovesincetheintroductionofremarkguidelineacomparisonofreportinginpublishedarticles
AT mallettsusan didthereportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersimprovesincetheintroductionofremarkguidelineacomparisonofreportinginpublishedarticles
AT altmandouglasg didthereportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersimprovesincetheintroductionofremarkguidelineacomparisonofreportinginpublishedarticles
AT sauerbreiwilli didthereportingofprognosticstudiesoftumourmarkersimprovesincetheintroductionofremarkguidelineacomparisonofreportinginpublishedarticles