The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. It was developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. In this paper we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report. METHODS: REMARK recommends including a transparent and full description of research goals and hypotheses, subject selection, specimen and assay considerations, marker measurement methods, statistical design and analysis, and study results. Each checklist item is explained and accompanied by published examples of good reporting, and relevant empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. We give prominence to discussion of the 'REMARK profile', a suggested tabular format for summarizing key study details. SUMMARY: The paper 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. To encourage dissemination of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration, this article has also been published in PLoS Medicine.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Self-citationHosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Self-citationCONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c332 · Cited by 9,329
Self-citationModeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model
Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. (2000) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3294-8 · Cited by 8,674
Vandenbroucke, 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 4×
“The distinction between analysis of the pre-specified hypotheses and exploratory analyses is important because it affects the interpretation (see Item 19) [9].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-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
Cited by
Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Deist, T. M., Peerlings, J., de Jong, E. E. C., van Timmeren, J., Sanduleanu, S., Larue, R. T. H. M., Even, A. J. G., Jochems, A., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 · Cited by 5,688
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-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-citationCollins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z · Cited by 1,927
Self-citationCollins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9736 · Cited by 889
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Altman, D. G., McShane, L. M., Sauerbrei, W., & Taube, S. E.
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2012-05-29
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-51
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2160046825
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 30.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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): explanation and elaboration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1741-7015-10-51
- The paper
- Altman, D. G., McShane, L. M., Sauerbrei, W., & Taube, S. E. (2012). Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-51
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.
