The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration
Open accessAbstract
The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Walter, S. D., & Altman, D. G. (1992) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532320 · Cited by 11,668
Self-citationPractical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613 · cited 1×
“Analyses performed to address new hypotheses suggested by inspection of the data are exploratory and should be reported as such, as it affects their interpretation (6).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350
Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., Wood, A. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393 · Cited by 7,299
Harrell (2015) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7 · Cited by 6,878
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Self-citationCollins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0697 · Cited by 3,267
Self-citationApplied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time-to-Event Data
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. A., & May, S. J. (2008) · Cited by 3,030
Cited by
The Prognostic and Clinical Value of CD44 in Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Wang, Z., Tang, Y., Xie, L., Huang, A., Xue, C., Gu, Z., Wang, K., & Zong, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00309 · Cited by 100
Effects of antibiotics on the anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy
Nie, F., Guo, J., Pan, J., Guo, Z., Wang, C., Yan, J., & Ma, W. (2024) · Clinical and Translational Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12094-024-03615-0 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., McShane, L. M., Cavenagh, M. M., & Altman, D. G.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-06-04
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 803-811
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2807055401
- Cited by
- 486
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 32.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djy088
- The paper
- Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., McShane, L. M., Cavenagh, M. M., & Altman, D. G. (2018). Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy088
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
