4.1 Article

Reporting in studies of protein biomarkers of prognosis in colorectal cancer in relation to the REMARK guidelines

Journal

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
Volume 9, Issue 11-12, Pages 1078-1086

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201400177

Keywords

Biomarker; Colorectal cancer; REMARK

Funding

  1. Cancer Institute New South Wales Translational Program Grant for Colorectal Cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The REMARK guidelines give authors comprehensive and specific advice on the complete and transparent reporting of studies of prognostic tumor markers. The aim of this study was to use the REMARK guidelines to evaluate the quality of reporting in a sample of studies assessing tissue-based protein markers for survival after resection of colorectal cancer. Experimental design: Eighty pertinent articles were scored according to their conformity to 26 items derived from the REMARK criteria. Results: Overall, on a scale of adequacy of reporting that potentially ranged from 26 to 78, the median for these studies was 60 (interquartile range 54-64) and several criteria were adequately covered in a large proportion of studies. However, others were either not dealt with or inadequately covered, including description of the study design (35%), definition of survival endpoints (48%), adjuvant therapy (54%), follow-up procedures and time (59%), neoadjuvant therapy (63%), inclusion/exclusion criteria (73%), multivariable modeling methods and results (74%), and discussion of study limitations (85%). Conclusions and clinical relevance: Inadequacies in presentationmilitate against comparability among protein marker studies and undermine the generalizability of their findings. The quality of reporting could be improved if journal editors were to require authors to ensure that their work satisfied the REMARK criteria.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available