Cited by 122Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAcademic Publishing and Open Access

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

Open access
Mallett, S, Timmer, A, Sauerbrei, W, Altman, D G·2010·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605462

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The REMARK guidelines for prognostic tumour marker studies recommend using a REMARK profile table instead of a flow diagram.

    “The REMARK guidelines for prognostic tumour marker studies recommend using a REMARK profile table instead of a flow diagram [69].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mallett, S., Timmer, A., Sauerbrei, W., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Mallett, S
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2009-12-08
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
173-180
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2124593264
Cited by
122
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (acceptedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Bundesministerium für Gesundheit
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
tumor markers, reporting quality, patient selection bias, multivariable analysis, survival analysis
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Publishing, Research Design, Biomarkers, Tumor, Writing, Selection Bias, Multivariate Analysis, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection

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