Top

BMC Medicine

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research article

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Authors: Willi Sauerbrei, Tim Haeussler, James Balmford, Marianne Huebner

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Factors contributing to the lack of understanding of research studies include poor reporting practices, such as selective reporting of statistically significant findings or insufficient methodological details. Systematic reviews have shown that prognostic factor studies continue to be poorly reported, even for important aspects, such as the effective sample size. The REMARK reporting guidelines support researchers in reporting key aspects of tumor marker prognostic studies. The REMARK profile was proposed to augment these guidelines to aid in structured reporting with an emphasis on including all aspects of analyses conducted.

Methods

A systematic search of prognostic factor studies was conducted, and fifteen studies published in 2015 were selected, three from each of five oncology journals. A paper was eligible for selection if it included survival outcomes and multivariable models were used in the statistical analyses. For each study, we summarized the key information in a REMARK profile consisting of details about the patient population with available variables and follow-up data, and a list of all analyses conducted.

Results

Structured profiles allow an easy assessment if reporting of a study only has weaknesses or if it is poor because many relevant details are missing. Studies had incomplete reporting of exclusion of patients, missing information about the number of events, or lacked details about statistical analyses, e.g., subgroup analyses in small populations without any information about the number of events. Profiles exhibit severe weaknesses in the reporting of more than 50% of the studies. The quality of analyses was not assessed, but some profiles exhibit several deficits at a glance.

Conclusions

A substantial part of prognostic factor studies is poorly reported and analyzed, with severe consequences for related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We consider inadequate reporting of single studies as one of the most important reasons that the clinical relevance of most markers is still unclear after years of research and dozens of publications. We conclude that structured reporting is an important step to improve the quality of prognostic marker research and discuss its role in the context of selective reporting, meta-analysis, study registration, predefined statistical analysis plans, and improvement of marker research.

Available only for authorised users

Riley R, Abrams K, Sutton A, Lambert P, Jones D, Heney D, et al. Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(8):1191–8 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600886.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

McShane L, Altman D, Sauerbrei W. Identification of clinically useful cancer prognostic factors: what are we missing? J National Cancer Institute. 2005;97(14):1023–5 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji193.CrossRef

Kyzas P, Loizou K, Ioannidis J. Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J National Cancer Institute. 2005;97(14):1043–55 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji184.CrossRef

McShane L, Altman D, Sauerbrei W, Taube S, Gion M, Clark G. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK). J National Cancer Institute. 2005;97(16):1180–4 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji237.CrossRef

Altman D, McShane L, Sauerbrei W, Taube S. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):e1001216 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001216.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Riley R, Hayden J, Steyerberg E, Moons K, Abrams K, Kyzas P, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001380 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001380.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Holländer N, Sauerbrei W. On statistical approaches for the multivariable analysis of prognostic marker studies. Advances in Statistical Methods for the Health Sciences:19-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4542-7_2.

Jankova L, Dent O, Molloy M, Chan C, Chapuis P, Howell V, et al. Reporting in studies of protein biomarkers of prognosis in colorectal cancer in relation to the REMARK guidelines. PROTEOMICS - Clin Applications. 2015;9(11-12):1078–86 https://doi.org/10.1002/prca.201400177.CrossRef

Kempf E, de Beyer J, Cook J, Holmes J, Mohammed S, Nguyên T, et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(10):1288–96 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

10.

Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Ioannidis J, Greenland S, Hlatky M, Khoury M, Macleod M, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz K, Altman D. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24.

13.

Thombs B, Levis B, Rice D, Wu Y, Benedetti A. Reducing waste and increasing the usability of psychiatry research: the family of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and one of ts newest members: the PRISMA-DTA Statement. Can J Psychiatry. 2018;63(8):509–12 https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743718773705.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Sekula P, Mallett S, Altman D, Sauerbrei W. Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178531 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178531.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Kyzas P, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis J. Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(17):2559–79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.030.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Winzer K, Buchholz A, Schumacher M, Sauerbrei W. Improving the prognostic ability through better use of standard clinical data - the Nottingham Prognostic Index as an example. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149977 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149977.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

17.

Sauerbrei W, Taube S, McShane L, Cavenagh M, Altman D. Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): an abridged explanation and elaboration. J National Cancer Institute. 2018;110(8):803–11 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy088.CrossRef

18.

McShane L, Hayes D. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4223–32 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6858.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Hemingway H, Philipson P, Chen R, Fitzpatrick N, Damant J, Shipley M, et al. Evaluating the quality of research into a single prognostic biomarker: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 83 studies of C-reactive protein in stable coronary artery disease. PLoS Med. 2010;7(6):e1000286 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000286.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Sigounas D, Tatsioni A, Christodoulou D, Tsianos E, Ioannidis J. New prognostic markers for outcome of acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2011;40(4):522–32 https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e31820bf8ac.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Huebner M, le Cessie S, Schmidt CO, Vach W. A contemporary conceptual framework for initial data analysis. Observational Stud. 2018;4:171–92.CrossRef

22.

Martin L, Senesse P, Gioulbasanis I, Antoun S, Bozzetti F, Deans C, et al. Diagnostic criteria for the classification of cancer-associated weight loss. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):90–9 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.1894.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Xing M, Alzahrani A, Carson K, Shong Y, Kim T, Viola D, et al. Association between BRAF V600E mutation and recurrence of papillary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):42–50 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.8253.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Huzell L, Persson M, Simonsson M, Markkula A, Ingvar C, Rose C, et al. History of oral contraceptive use in breast cancer patients: impact on prognosis and endocrine treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(2):505–15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3252-8.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Thurner E, Krenn-Pilko S, Langsenlehner U, Stojakovic T, Pichler M, Gerger A, et al. The elevated C-reactive protein level is associated with poor prognosis in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(5):610–9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.01.002.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Schirripa M, Cremolini C, Loupakis F, Morvillo M, Bergamo F, Zoratto F, et al. Role of NRAS mutations as prognostic and predictive markers in metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2014;136(1):83–90 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28955.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Heinze G, Dunkler D. Five myths about variable selection. Transpl Int. 2016;30(1):6–10 https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12895.CrossRef

28.

Hayashi N, Niikura N, Masuda N, Takashima S, Nakamura R, Watanabe K, et al. Prognostic factors of HER2-positive breast cancer patients who develop brain metastasis: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;149(1):277–84 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3237-7.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Jerzak K, Cockburn J, Pond G, Pritchard K, Narod S, Dhesy-Thind S, et al. Thyroid hormone receptor α in breast cancer: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;149(1):293–301 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3235-9.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Billingsley C, Cohn D, Mutch D, Stephens J, Suarez A, Goodfellow P. Polymerase ɛ (POLE) mutations in endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and implications for Lynch syndrome testing. Cancer. 2014;121(3):386–94 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29046.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Huang S, Waldron J, Milosevic M, Shen X, Ringash J, Su J, et al. Prognostic value of pretreatment circulating neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in oropharyngeal cancer stratified by human papillomavirus status. Cancer. 2014;121(4):545–55 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29100.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Price T, Beeke C, Ullah S, Padbury R, Maddern G, Roder D, et al. Does the primary site of colorectal cancer impact outcomes for patients with metastatic disease? Cancer. 2014;121(6):830–5 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29129.PubMedCrossRef

33.

González-Vallinas M, Vargas T, Moreno-Rubio J, Molina S, Herranz J, Cejas P, et al. Clinical relevance of the differential expression of the glycosyltransferase gene GCNT3 in colon cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(1):1–8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.10.021.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Hokuto D, Sho M, Yamato I, Yasuda S, Obara S, Nomi T, et al. Clinical impact of herpesvirus entry mediator expression in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(2):157–65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.11.004.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Keck B, Wach S, Taubert H, Zeiler S, Ott O, Kunath F, et al. Neuropilin-2 and its ligand VEGF-C predict treatment response after transurethral resection and radiochemotherapy in bladder cancer patients. Int J Cancer. 2014;136(2):443–51 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28987.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Rödel F, Wieland U, Fraunholz I, Kitz J, Rave-Fränk M, Wolff H, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA load and p16INK4aexpression predict for local control in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Cancer. 2014;136(2):278–88 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28979.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Ostronoff F, Othus M, Lazenby M, Estey E, Appelbaum F, Evans A, et al. Prognostic significance of NPM1 mutations in the absence of FLT3–internal tandem duplication in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: aA SWOG and UK National Cancer Research Institute/Medical Research Council Report. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1157–64 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.0571.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;286(6376):1489.CrossRef

39.

Lang TA, Secic M. How to report statistics in medicine: annotated guidelines for authors, editors and reviewers. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1997.CrossRef

40.

Lang T, Altman D. Statistical analyses and methods in the published literature: the SAMPL guidelines. Medical Writing. 2016;25:31–6.

41.

Diong J, Butler AA, Gandevia SC, Héroux ME. Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Brick C, McDowell M, Freeman ALJ. Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on “fact boxes.” R Soc Open Sci 2020;7(3):190876.

43.

Riley RD, Moons KGM, Hayden JA, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Prognostic factor research. In: Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods, and impact. London, England: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 107–38.CrossRef

44.

Simon R, Altman D. Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. Br J Cancer 1994;69(6):979-985. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1994.192.

45.

Altman D, Lyman G. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Prognostic variables in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. 1998;:379-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5195-9_28.

46.

Moher D, Altman D, Schulz K, Simera I, Wager E, editors. Guidelines for reporting health research: A user’s manual: Bmj Publishing Group; 2014.

47.

Altman, DG., McShane, L. M., Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., & Cavenagh M. M. (2014). REMARK (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor MARKer Prognostic Studies). In Moher D, Altman D, Schulz K, Simera I, Wager E, editors. Guidelines for reporting health research: A user’s manual (p. 241-249). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

48.

Mallett S, Timmer A, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(1):173–80.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001;323(7306):224–8 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7306.224.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Sauerbrei W. Prognostic factors. Confusion caused by bad quality design, analysis and reporting of many studies. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;62:184–200.PubMed

51.

Sauerbrei W, Holländer N, Riley RD, Altman DG. Evidence-based assessment and application of prognostic markers: the long way from single studies to meta-analysis. CommunStat - Theory Methods. 2006;35(7):1333–42 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920600629666.CrossRef

52.

Malats N, Bustos A, Nascimento C, Fernandez F, Rivas M, Puente D, et al. P53 as a prognostic marker for bladder cancer: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(9):678–86 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70315-6.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Papadakis ES, Reeves T, Robson NH, Maishman T, Packham G, Cutress RI. BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(12):1585–94 https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.130.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

54.

Sauerbrei W, Haeussler T. Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses’. Br J Cancer. 2018;118(8):1152–3 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0023-z.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

55.

Real FX, Malats N. Bladder cancer and apoptosis: matters of life and death. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(2):91–2.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Kern SE. Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures. Cancer Res. 2012;72(23):6097–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

57.

Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PMM, Korevaar DA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–86.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–9.

59.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. Clin Chem. 2003;49(1):1–6.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Elm E von, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology 2007; 18(6):800–804.

61.

EQUATOR Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. https://www.equator-network.org/. .

62.

Moher D, Schulz K, Simera I, Altman D. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

63.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

64.

Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):55–63.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JPA, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1–73 https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Heus P, Damen JAAG, Pajouheshnia R, Scholten RJPM, Reitsma JB, Collins GS, et al. Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement. BMC Med. 2018;16(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1099-2.

67.

Perel P, Edwards P, Wentz R, Roberts I. Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6(1):38.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

68.

Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Margulis V, Kattan MW. Inventory of prostate cancer predictive tools. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(3):279–96.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Wyatt JC, Altman DG. Commentary: Prognostic models: clinically useful or quickly forgotten? BMJ. 1995;311(7019):1539–41 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1539.PubMedCentralCrossRef

70.

Moons KGM, de Groot JAH, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001744 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

71.

Bradley A, Van Der Meer R, McKay CJ. A systematic review of methodological quality of model development studies predicting prognostic outcome for resectable pancreatic cancer. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027192 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027192.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

72.

Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020;369:m1328 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1328.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

73.

Sperrin M, Grant SW, Peek N. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis in Covid-19. BMJ. 2020;369:m1464.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Collins GS, Moons KGM. Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. Lancet. 2019;393(10181):1577–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30037-6.67

75.

Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, Király FJ, Ghani R, Jonsson P, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ. 2020;368:l6927 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6927.PubMedCrossRef

76.

Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, Balu S. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0253-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Birnbaum DJ, Finetti P, Lopresti A, Gilabert M, Poizat F, Raoul J-L, et al. A 25-gene classifier predicts overall survival in resectable pancreatic cancer. BMC Med. 2017;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0936-z.

78.

Rifai N, Altman DG, Bossuyt P. Reporting bias in diagnostic and prognostic studies: time for action. Clin Chem. 2008;54:1101–3.PubMedCrossRef

79.

Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

80.

Andre F, McShane LM, Michiels S, Ransohoff DF, Altman DG, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(3):171–6.PubMedCrossRef

81.

Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56–65.PubMedCrossRef

82.

Sekula P, Pressler JB, Sauerbrei W, Goebell PJ, Schmitz-Dräger BJ. Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e009972. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009972.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Doussau A, Vinarov E, Barsanti-Innes B, Kimmelman J. Comparison between protocols and publications for prognostic and predictive cancer biomarker studies. Clin Trials. 2020;17(1):61–8.PubMedCrossRef

84.

Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51–8 https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1376.PubMedCrossRef

85.

Debray TPA, de Jong VMT, Moons KGM, Riley RD. Evidence synthesis in prognosis research. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3(1):13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

86.

Abo-Zaid G, Sauerbrei W, Riley RD. Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

87.

Inker LA, Grams ME, Levey AS, Coresh J, Cirillo M, Collins JF, et al. Relationship of estimated GFR and albuminuria to concurrent laboratory abnormalities: an individual participant data meta-analysis in a global consortium. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;73(2):206–17.PubMedCrossRef

88.

Holden S, Kasza J, Winters M, van Middelkoop M, Rathleff MS. Prognostic factors for adolescent knee pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 1281 patients. Pain. 2021;162(6):1597–607.PubMedCrossRef

89.

Ventresca M, Schünemann HJ, Macbeth F, Clarke M, Thabane L, Griffiths G, et al. Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

90.

Riley RD, Ridley G, Williams K, Altman DG, Hayden J, de Vet HCW. Prognosis research: toward evidence-based results and a Cochrane methods group. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(8):863–5 author reply 865-6.PubMedCrossRef

91.

Cochrane Prognosis - Cochrane Methods. https://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/. Accessed 29 July 2021.

92.

Sauerbrei W, Bland M, Evans SJW, Riley RD, Royston P, Schumacher M, et al. Doug Altman: Driving critical appraisal and improvements in the quality of methodological and medical research. Biom J. 2021;63(2):226–46.PubMedCrossRef

93.

Prognosis Research. https://www.prognosisresearch.com/. Accessed 29 July 2021.

94.

Peat G, Riley RD, Croft P, Morley KI, Kyzas PA, Moons KGM, et al. Improving the transparency of prognosis research: the role of reporting, data sharing, registration, and protocols. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001671.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

95.

Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods, and impact. London, England: Oxford University Press; 2019.

96.

Riley RD, Snell KIE, Moons KGM, Debray TPA. Ten principles to strengthen prognosis research. In: Riley RD, van der Windt D, Croft P, Moons KGM, editors. Prognosis research in healthcare: concepts, methods, and impact. London, England: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 69–84.CrossRef

97.

Sauerbrei W, Abrahamowicz M, Altman DG, le Cessie S, Carpenter J, STRATOS initiative. STRengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: the STRATOS initiative. Stat Med. 2014;33(30):5413–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

98.

Huebner M, Vach W, le Cessie S, Schmidt CO, Lusa L. Hidden analyses: a review of reporting practice and recommendations for more transparent reporting of initial data analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):1–10.CrossRef

99.

Dwivedi AK, Shukla R. Evidence-based statistical analysis and methods in biomedical research (SAMBR) checklists according to design features. Cancer Rep. 2020;3(4):e1211.

100.

Altman DG. The time has come to register diagnostic and prognostic research. Clin Chem. 2014;60(4):580–2.PubMedCrossRef

101.

Riley RD, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(8):1219–29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

102.

Tomar T, Alkema NG, Schreuder L, Meersma GJ, de Meyer T, van Criekinge W, et al. Methylome analysis of extreme chemoresponsive patients identifies novel markers of platinum sensitivity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BMC Med. 2017;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0870-0.

103.

Van Calster B, Wynants L, Riley RD, van Smeden M, Collins GS. Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.

104.

Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ (Clinical Research Edition). 1994;308(6924):283–4.CrossRef

Title: Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies
Authors: Willi Sauerbrei
Tim Haeussler
James Balmford
Marianne Huebner
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02304-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children—what is known?

Frequency of adding salt at the table and risk of incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a prospective cohort study

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

Effectiveness of early rhythm control in improving clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Longitudinal risk of maternal hospitalization for mental illness following preterm birth

The effect of oral diabetes medications on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Asians in primary care: a retrospective cohort real-world data study