Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22675273›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2012

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Douglas G Altman, Lisa M McShane, Willi Sauerbrei, Sheila E Taube

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03951233 (Genotyping K-RAS and EGFR in Greek Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 459 papers, 35 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
459citing papers in PubMed, 35 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03951233 completednot on this map

Genotyping K-RAS and EGFR in Greek Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients: Incidence, Significance and Treatment Implications

TypeobservationalSponsorHellenic Cooperative Oncology GroupRan2000 to 2014Enrolled424ConditionsNon Small Cell Lung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

459 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Defining a minimum nodal yield for neck dissection in mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Prognostic significance of surgical margins in laryngeal cancer treated by transoral laser microsurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Prognostic significance of surgical margins in open neck horizontal laryngectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. The impact of resection margins in hypopharyngeal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. The impact of margins in laryngeal cancer patients treated with transoral laser microsurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Prognostic Role of CD68British journal of biomedical science · 2023
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

399 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. doug.altman@csm.ox.ac.uk
Lisa M McShane
Willi Sauerbrei
Sheila E Taube

Funding

Cancer Research UK C5529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The REMARK (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies) guideline includes a checklist which aims to improve the reporting of these types of studies. Here, we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report. Each checklist item of the REMARK guideline is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorChecklistGuidelines as TopicNeoplasmsBiomedical ResearchHumansPrognosisPublishingResearch DesignResearch ReportBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID22675273
PMCPMC3362085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.