Cited by 2,162Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyCancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)

McShane, Lisa M., Altman, Douglas G., Sauerbrei, Willi, Taube, Sheila E., Gion, Massimo, Clark, Gary M.·2005·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor 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 methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor 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 generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/dji237

Cites

47 of 47 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McShane, L. M., Altman, D. G., Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., Gion, M., & Clark, G. M.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
McShane, Lisa M.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2005-08-17
Volume
97
Issue
16
Pages
1180-1184
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2096910745
Cited by
2,162
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 112 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 126 · 2018: 116 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 163 · 2015: 192 · 2014: 167 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 173
FWCI
56.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • Yale Cancer Center
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Translational Cancer Research Network
  • National Cancer Institute (MD 20892, 20892)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
tumor markers, prognostic factors, reporting guidelines, remarks, reporting quality, methodological discrepancies, research design, assay method, statistical analysis methods, cancer diagnosis, research transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Research Design, Biomarkers, Tumor, Information Dissemination, Biomedical Research

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