Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)

Clicks: 1
ID: 290930
2005
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #226 of 333 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 333 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W2096910745 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lisa M. McShane, Douglas G. Altman, Willi Sauerbrei, Sheila E. Taube, Massimo Gion, Gary M. Clark
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2005
DOI
10.1093/jnci/dji237
URL
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-pdf/97/16/1180/7686400/dji237.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.