Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23993398›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2014

STROGAR - STrengthening the Reporting Of Genetic Association studies in Radiogenomics.

Sarah L Kerns, Dirk de Ruysscher, Christian N Andreassen, David Azria, Gillian C Barnett, Jenny Chang-Claude, Susan Davidson, Joseph O Deasy, Alison M Dunning, Harry Ostrer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Inclusion of dosimetric data as covariates in toxicity-related radiogenomic studies : A systematic review.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sarah L KernsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA; Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA; Department of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA.
Dirk de RuysscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven/KU Leuven, Belgium.
Christian N AndreassenDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
David AzriaMontpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier University, France.
Gillian C BarnettDepartment of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Jenny Chang-ClaudeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Susan DavidsonDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Christie NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Joseph O DeasyDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Alison M DunningUniversity of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratories, UK.
Harry OstrerDepartment of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA; Department of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA.
Barry S RosensteinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Catharine M L WestInstitute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Søren M BentzenDepartment of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. Electronic address: bentzen@humonc.wisc.edu.

Funding

Genome-Wide Study to Identify SNPs and CNPs Associated with Radiation InjuryR01CA134444 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI OSTRER, HARRY, ROSENSTEIN, BARRY S · 2009 to 2012
$2.3M
Cancer Research UK 16565Cancer Research UK 18504NCI NIH HHS R01 CA134444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite publication of numerous radiogenomics studies to date, positive single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations have rarely been reproduced in independent validation studies. A major reason for these inconsistencies is a high number of false positive findings because no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. It is also possible that some validation studies were false negatives due to methodological shortcomings or a failure to reproduce relevant details of the original study. Transparent reporting is needed to ensure these flaws do not hamper progress in radiogenomics. In response to the need for improving the quality of research in the area, the Radiogenomics Consortium produced an 18-item checklist for reporting radiogenomics studies. It is recognised that not all studies will have recorded all of the information included in the checklist. However, authors should report on all checklist items and acknowledge any missing information. Use of STROGAR guidelines will advance the field of radiogenomics by increasing the transparency and completeness of reporting.

Indexed as

ChecklistGenetic Association StudiesHumansNeoplasmsPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePractice Guidelines as TopicGeneticsNormal tissue toxicityRadiogenomicsReporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID23993398
PMCPMC4786020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.