Cited by 271Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer.

Altman, Douglas G., Lyman, Gary H.·1998·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract

Many studies are carried out in an effort to find factors that help explain the large unexplained variation in prognosis of breast cancer patients. The principles of good study design and analysis are less well appreciated for prognostic factor studies than for therapeutic trials. The oncology literature is full of results from studies of varying quality, often with conflicting findings. As a consequence, despite the large number of studies, there is still uncertainty about the importance of most prognostic factors. Few recently proposed prognostic factors for breast cancer have become widely accepted. This paper reviews the important methodological issues underlying such research. These issues are illustrated with examples from published studies and recent reviews of papers published in cancer journals. Guidelines are proposed for conducting and evaluating prognostic factor studies which should improve the quality of research in this important area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1006193704132

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Altman, D. G., & Lyman, G. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published
1998-11
Volume
52
Issue
1-3
Pages
289-303
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
OpenAlex
W2092931112
Cited by
271
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 17
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
breast cancer, prognostic factors, research design, statistical analysis, research quality, methodological issues, research guidelines
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Prognosis, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Sample Size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review