Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies

Kyzas, Panayiotis; Loizou, Konstantinos T.; Ioannidis, John P. A.

doi:10.1093/jnci/dji184

Cited by 217 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed presentation is more appropriate if the issue investigated is of major concern, or if effect estimates vary considerably. 59,186 Pocock and colleagues found that 43 out of 73 articles reporting observational studies contained subgroup analyses. The majority claimed differences across groups but only eight articles reported a formal evaluation of interaction (see item 12b).…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. (Epidemiology 2007;18: 805-835) R ational health care practices require knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases. Randomized trials provide valuable evidence about treatments and other interventions. However, much of clinical or public health knowledge comes from observational research. 1 About nine of ten research papers published in clinical speciality journals describe observational research. 2,3 The STROBE StatementReporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. The STROBE Statement has recently been published in several journals. 6 Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study. We stress that the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate 805associations between expos...

show abstract

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That deficits in reporting can affect the outcome of a study has been shown by many studies (Sutton et al, 2000;Chan and Altman, 2005a, b;Chan et al, 2004;Kyzas et al, 2005). Interestingly, no clear standards exist for the reporting of experimental data.…”

Section: Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bench to Bedside: The Quest for Quality in Experimental Stroke Research

Dirnagl

2006

J Cereb Blood Flow Metab

317

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, great progress has been made in clinical as well as experimental stroke research. Disappointingly, however, hundreds of clinical trials testing neuroprotective agents have failed despite efficacy in experimental models. Recently, several systematic reviews have exposed a number of important deficits in the quality of preclinical stroke research. Many of the issues raised in these reviews are not specific to experimental stroke research, but apply to studies of animal models of disease in general. It is the aim of this article to review some quality-related sources of bias with a particular focus on experimental stroke research. Weaknesses discussed include, among others, low statistical power and hence reproducibility, defects in statistical analysis, lack of blinding and randomization, lack of quality-control mechanisms, deficiencies in reporting, and negative publication bias. Although quantitative evidence for quality problems at present is restricted to preclinical stroke research, to spur discussion and in the hope that they will be exposed to meta-analysis in the near future, I have also included some quality-related sources of bias, which have not been systematically studied. Importantly, these may be also relevant to mechanism-driven basic stroke research. I propose that by a number of rather simple measures reproducibility of experimental results, as well as the step from bench to bedside in stroke research may be made more successful. However, the ultimate proof for this has to await successful phase III stroke trials, which were built on basic research conforming to the criteria as put forward in this article.

show abstract

“…An appropriate assessment of the study's strengths and weaknesses is not possible without this information. There is ample evidence that prediction research often suffers from poor design and bias, and these may also have an impact on the results of the studies and on the models of disease outcomes based on these studies [4][5][6]. Although most prognostic studies published to date claim significant results [7,8], very few translate to clinically useful applications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement

Janssens

Ioannidis

Duijn

et al. 2011

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies

Abstract: Selective reporting may spuriously inflate the importance of postulated prognostic factors for various malignancies. We recommend that meta-analyses thereof should maximize retrieval of information and standardize definitions.

Cited by 217 publications

References 112 publications

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Bench to Bedside: The Quest for Quality in Experimental Stroke Research

Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About