Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29873743›Full record

ReviewJournal of the National Cancer Institute2018

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): An Abridged Explanation and Elaboration.

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

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 294 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
294citing papers in PubMed, 21 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

294 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prognostic Value of Bcl-xL in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Blood Biomarkers of Long COVID: A Systematic Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2024
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is an independent prognostic factor in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2022
    Pooled it

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

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

5 authors.

Willi SauerbreiInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sheila E TaubeCancer Diagnosis Program and Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Lisa M McShaneCancer Diagnosis Program and Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Margaret M CavenaghCancer Diagnosis Program and Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Cancer Research UK C5529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicBiomarkers, TumorBiomedical ResearchHumansNeoplasmsPrognosisPublishingResearch DesignBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID29873743
PMCPMC6093349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.