Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses'

Sauerbrei, Willi; Haeussler, Tim

doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0023-z

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They assessed the quality of reporting according to the REMARK guidelines and conducted three meta-analyses. Sauerbrei and Haeussler [ 54 ] criticized several major weaknesses in the quality of reporting and meta-analyses and concluded that results and inferences from the study were not justified by the assessments and analyses presented. An inadequate assessment of the quality of reporting according to REMARK is the first issue they mention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Sauerbrei

Haeussler

Balmford

et al. 2022

BMC Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meta-analyses based on aggregate data are common but can they provide suitable assessments of the value of prognostic markers? Obviously, inadequate reporting of the original studies is an important reason that the answer is a clear “no.” A number of other critical issues are briefly discussed by Sauerbrei and Haeussler [ 54 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Sauerbrei

Haeussler

Balmford

et al. 2022

BMC Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We thank Sauerbrei and Haeussler 1 for their interest in our paper 2 and their methodological comments. Our aim was to undertake these analyses and draw some conclusions from the available literature regarding the prognostic significance of BAG-1 in breast cancer, given multiple studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses’’

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primed for death: prognostic role of BH3--only proteins in breast cancer therapy: a systematic and meta-analysis review

Taha,

Omar,

Abdelsattar

et al. 2024

transl med commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses'

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘BAG-1 as a biomarker in early breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses’’

Primed for death: prognostic role of BH3--only proteins in breast cancer therapy: a systematic and meta-analysis review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About