ArticlePloS one2017
Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Machine learning prediction models in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review in transparent reporting.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022Pooled it
- Biological tumor markers associated with local control after primary radiotherapy in laryngeal cancer: A systematic review.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Tissue-infiltrating immune cells as prognostic markers in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic review and REMARK scoring of renal cell carcinoma prognostic circulating biomarker manuscripts.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Using microRNAs as Novel Predictors of Urologic Cancer Survival: An Integrated Analysis.EBioMedicine · 2018Pooled it
- Prognostic DNA methylation markers for sporadic colorectal cancer: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2018Pooled it
- Design aspects for prognostic factor studies.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Evaluation of changes in prediction modelling in biomedicine using systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies.BMC medicine · 2022Review
- The Prognostic Importance of ctDNA in Rectal Cancer: A Critical Reappraisal.Cancers · 2022 · on this mapReview
- Practical Tools and Guidelines for Young Oncologists From Resource-Limited Settings to Publish Excellence and Advance Their Career.JCO global oncology · 2021Article
- A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- A non-linear optimisation method to extract summary statistics from Kaplan-Meier survival plots using the published P value.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding.Frontiers in neuroendocrinology · 2020Review
- Integrating molecular nuclear imaging in clinical research to improve anticancer therapy.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Review
- Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although biomarkers are perceived as highly relevant for future clinical practice, few biomarkers reach clinical utility for several reasons. Among them, poor reporting of studies is one of the major problems. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess whether reporting quality of TMP-studies improved in comparison to a previously conducted study assessing reporting quality of TMP-studies (PRE-study) and to assess whether articles citing REMARK (citing group) are better reported, in comparison to articles not citing REMARK (not-citing group). For the POST-study, recent articles citing and not citing REMARK (53 each) were identified in selected journals through systematic literature search and evaluated in same way as in the PRE-study. Ten of the 20 items of the REMARK checklist were evaluated and used to define an overall score of reporting quality. The observed overall scores were 53.4% (range: 10%-90%) for the PRE-study, 57.7% (range: 20%-100%) for the not-citing group and 58.1% (range: 30%-100%) for the citing group of the POST-study. While there is no difference between the two groups of the POST-study, the POST-study shows a slight but not relevant improvement in reporting relative to the PRE-study. Not all the articles of the citing group, cited REMARK appropriately. Irrespective of whether REMARK was cited, the overall score was slightly higher for articles published in journals requesting adherence to REMARK than for those published in journals not requesting it: 59.9% versus 51.9%, respectively. Several years after the introduction of REMARK, many key items of TMP-studies are still very poorly reported. A combined effort is needed from authors, editors, reviewers and methodologists to improve the current situation. Good reporting is not just nice to have but is essential for any research to be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.